Loading...
03/07/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Tuesday, March 7, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Also In Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Rocky Fluhart, Management Services Department Chief Administrative Officer; Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Director/Community Planning/Land Use and Transportation/Support Staff; Patrick Thronson, Mayor' s Communications/Public Relations Officer; Matt Williams, Real Property Acting Director; Richard Johnston, Deputy City Engineer; Kurt Larson, Transportation Planning Engineer; Daniel Mule, City Treasurer; Michael Barry, Transportation Street Lighting Engineer; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Everett Joyce, Community Planning/Land Use and Transportation; Robert Steiner, Rowland Hall; Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Craig Peterson, City Lobbyist; Bill Rutherford, Urban Forester; D. J. Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Kay Christensen, Budget Analyst; Susi Kontgis, Budget Analyst; Orion Goff, Building Official; Gordon Hoskins, Chief Financial Officer; Laurie Donnell, Budget Analyst; Valda Tarbet, Redevelopment Agency Deputy Director; Kelly Murdock, City' s Financial Advisor; Virginia Ward, Justice Court Judge; Mary Johnston, City Courts Director; Richard Scott, Chapman and Cutler Bond Counsel; Kevin Bergstrom, Public Services Deputy Director; Sylvia Jones, Council Research and Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Dell Cook, Engineering Landscape and Architect Project Manager; Janice Lew, Principal Planner; Simarjit Singh Gill, City Prosecutor; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; John Naser, Engineering Senior Project Manager; Mary Guy-Sell, Intermodal Hub Consultant; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Brent Wilde, Community Development Deputy Director; Alison McFarlane, Mayor' s Senior Advisor for Economic Development; Charles Dinse, Police Chief; Scott Atkinson, Assistant Police Chief; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 30 p.m. 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MARCH 7 , 2006 AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5:30:37 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE STRONGS COURT, (#102109) AND FENWAY AVENUE (#102129) RECONSTRUCTION SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (SID) . (Item F-1) View Attachments Jan Aramaki, Richard Johnston, Dan Mule, Kurt Larson and Michael Barry briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler said the item would be addressed during the formal meeting. #2 . 5:33:49PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING YALE AVENUE, 1300 EAST TO 1500 EAST, STREET LIGHTING SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (SID) JOB NO. 106029. (ITEM F-2) View Attachments Jan Aramaki and Michael Barry briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler said the item would be addressed during the formal meeting. #3 . 5:37:57 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING ROWLAND HALL ST. MARK' S SCHOOL REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED Al APPROXIMATELY 1443 EAST SUNNYSIDE AVENUE FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) TO INSTITUTIONAL (I) AND TO AMEND THE EAST BENCH MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-05-08 AND 400-05-09 . View Attachments Janice Jardine, Everett Joyce, Alex Ikefuna, Rick Graham, Doug Wheelwright and Robert Steiner briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Discussion was held on whether the City had a formal open space policy. Mr. Joyce said community master plans contained generalized statements but he was not aware of a Citywide policy. Mr. Ikefuna said the department was currently working with a consultant to prepare a study to address open space classification. Councilmember Jergensen said the study would be useful in developing an overall policy. Councilmember Simonsen said he wanted to publicly disclose that he had worked with Rowland Hall as a past client. Councilmember Buhler said a public hearing would be scheduled for April 4, 2006 . #4 . 6:43:38 PM RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ON LEGISLATIVE ISSUES. View Attachments Lynn Pace and Craig Peterson briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Buhler asked if the City' s ordinance regarding tenant application fees needed to be amended to conform to the new statue . Mr. Pace said yes . 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MARCH 7 , 2006 Councilmember Christensen asked if the City needed to have an ordinance/policy in place prior to holding electronic meetings . Mr. Pace said yes . He said he would provide additional information. Mr. Pace said the Council could review the handout and contact him with any questions . Councilmember Simonsen said he felt preparations for the next legislative session needed to begin well in advance . Councilmember Buhler said he agreed and would take the suggestion under advisement. #5 . 8:21:18 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN UPDATE ON THE GRANT TOWER PROJECT. View Attachments Jennifer Bruno, Kay Christensen, Kelly Murdock, D.J. Baxter, Richard Scott and Valda Tarbet briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Discussion was held on funding options . Councilmember Buhler suggested taking $6 . 7 million from fund balance and $3 . 1 million from the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) . A straw poll was taken on the suggestion. Consensus could not be reached. Councilmember Buhler said this issue was part of the budget amendment which was scheduled for formal action on March 21, 2006 . He said several funding options would be prepared prior to the meeting. #6 . 9:06:40 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 4 INCLUDING RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND REVENUE FORECAST FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 . View Attachments Sylvia Jones, Gordon Hoskins, Rocky Fluhart, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom, Bill Rutherford, Edwin Rutan, Laurie Donnell, Virginia Ward, Orion Goff and Dell Cook briefed the Council with the attached handouts . All items listed under "Matters of Issue" in the attached staff report were advanced except the following: Item A-2 : Wasatch Front Regional Council lobbying ($5,000 - General Fund) fund balance ("New Item") . Councilmember Buhler recommended not funding the item. He said whoever made the commitment needed to find the money. All Council Members were in favor. Item A-12 : Citywide Interoperable Communications . The Council asked the Administration to prepare additional information prior to the March 21, 2006 meeting. Council Members wanted information on School District participation and costs which would be incurred by waiting until the budget was adopted in June . 06 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MARCH 7 , 2006 Item A-23, Additional legal support. A majority of the Council was in favor of authorizing an additional one quarter FTE with the stipulation that the Attorney' s Office find $3, 300 in their budget. Item A-25, Justice Court staffing. The Council was in favor of moving forward with the audit. A straw poll was taken on authorizing four temporary contract clerks . The majority of the Council was in favor. Councilmember Buhler said the revised action would be on the budget amendment. Item A-27 : Street lighting funding analysis. The majority of the Council was in favor of waiting for the March 9, 2006 briefing before placing the item on the budget amendment. Some Council Members were in favor of moving the item to the regular budget. Item G-1 : Special Revenue Donation Fund. The Council was in favor of having the Administration prepare recommendations on allocating funds and preparing periodic updates prior to March 21, 2006 . Item G-2 : Portable recording system. The Council was in favor of funding $11, 500 from the Information Management Division. Council Members expressed concerns about the following items : Item A-11 : Class C Street Rehabilitation. Council Members Christensen and Saxton said they were concerned that surface treatments had failed on several streets . Item A-16: Police Department fleet fuel cost increase. Councilmember Buhler said issues relating to take home vehicles needed to be reviewed. #7 . 8:20:12 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE HONORARY NAME OF "KARL MALONE DRIVE" TO THE PORTION OF 100 SOUTH STREET LOCATED BETWEEN 300 AND 400 WEST PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-06-04 . View Attachments Janice Lew, Alex Ikefuna and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with the attached handout . The majority of the Council was in favor of advancing the issue . #8 . 10:11:53 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE PUBLIC BODY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, AND TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION; PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § § 52-4-4 , 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iii) , AND 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iv) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-24-8 . 06 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MARCH 7 , 2006 Executive Session was not held. #9 . 10:13:44PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS . See file M 06-5 for announcements . The meeting adjourned at 10 : 19 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held March 7, 2006 . sc 06 - 5 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: March 3,2006 SUBJECT: Special Improvement District (SID) Resolution for Notice of Intention and to set protest hearing date of April 11,2006 Strongs Court SID #102109: reconstruction of the roadway,including installation of concrete pavement, gutters,sidewalk,water facilities, driveway approaches,and street lighting. Fenway Ave. SID#102129: reconstruction of the roadway, including installation of concrete pavement, Gutters,sidewalk,water facilities, and driveway approaches. AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: 4 STAFF REPORT BY: Jan Aramaki,Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Department of Public Services AND CONTACT PERSON: Daniel C. Noziska,P.E.,Senior Project Mgr. FILE LOCATIONS: Public Services/Strongs Court SID No. 102109 and Fenway Avenue SID No. 102129. POTENTIAL MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council'] Set the protest hearing date of April 11,2006 at 7:00 p.m. to accept protests and adopt the resolution(declaring the Intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,to construct improvements within the City consisting of the reconstruction of roadways,including installation of concrete pavement,gutters,sidewalk,water facilities, driveway approaches,street lighting,and all other miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements in a proper and workmanlike manner;to create the Salt Lake City,Utah Strongs Court(#102109) and Fenway Avenue (#102129) reconstruction Special Improvement District;to pay the improvement costs and expenses by special assessments to be levied against the property benefited by such improvements;to provide Notice of Intention to authorize such improvements and to fix a time and place for protests against such improvements, assessments or the creation of the District;to declare its official intent to reimburse itself for expenditures paid by it prior to the sale of bonds; and to authorize advertisement of construction bids and related matters). 1 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt the resolution. KEY ELEMENTS: (Resolution) According to the Administration,currently Strongs Court(845 East between 340-400 South streets) and Fenway Avenue (635 South between 1200-1240 East streets) are private streets. Property owners made a request to the City to have both streets reconstructed to City standards as dedicated City streets,to include new utilities and pavement. As the first step in creating the process to establish the Special Improvement Districts (SIDs),Strong Courts SID No.102109 and Fenway Avenue SID No. 102129,the Administration is requesting that the Council adopt a resolution declaring the Notice of Intention that includes the identified two streets. The Administration states that proposed"improvements shall be constructed according to plans,profiles and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer" and are as follows: Strongs Court#102109: complete reconstruction of the roadway to include concrete pavement, gutters,sidewalk,water facilities,driveway approaches, and street lighting. Fenway Avenue#102129: complete reconstruction of the roadway to include concrete pavement,gutters, sidewalk,water facilities,and driveway approaches. Approximately 12-14 properties have been identified along both sides of each street. Projected construction schedule indicates work to begin around mid-June 2006 with an anticipated completion date of September 2006 Funding sources are allocated from the Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Project(CIP)budget,Public Utilities Department water and storm drain budgets,and property owner assessments through the SID broken down as follows: Strongs Court (SID#102109) Property Owners (rate$125.67/LF): $82,940 Salt Lake City Funds $84,348 Public Utilities Department $28,120 Total Estimated Costs $195,408 Fenway Avenue (SID #102129) Property Owners (rate$116.78/LF): $81,161 Salt Lake City Funds $82,727 Public Utilities Department $27,788 Total Estimated Costs $191,676 For a combined total of: Property Owner's Assessed Portion of Costs $164,101 City's Portion of Costs $222,983 Project Estimated Total $387,084 2 The estimated property owners' costs include: "construct-ion cost to complete the item of work, engineering expenses, allowance for the interest on interim warrants, if any, issued to finance construction of the improvements and ten percent for bonding, administrative costs, a possible underwriter's discount on the sale of bonds, legal and other costs in connection with the issuance of assessment bonds." Assessments may be paid by property owners in not more than ten (10) equal annual installments with interest on the unpaid balance until due and paid. An informal public meeting is scheduled for April 3,2006 for the Administration to review the proposed SID with interested abutting property owners. The meeting location is the Salt Lake City Engineering Office's First Floor Conference Room at 349 South 200 East from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Following Council's approval of the attached resolution, a letter will be sent to property owners living within the boundary areas of the proposed SID along with "Answers to the Most Commonly Asked Questions" sheet(see attached). Property owners will then be notified that the City is considering a proposed street reconstruction project that includes their properties. The property owners are informed that the improvement costs will be shared 50/50 by the City and the property owner. It is stated in the Resolution that abutting property owners within the SID area to be improved who have built or installed "nonconforming improvements such as lawns, shrubs, hedges,sprinkling systems,rock gardens, driveways,curb, gutters,culverts,walks,fences, etc." must be removed at the property owner's expense prior to construction improvements beginning. The contractor will remove and dispose of improvements if they are not removed by the property owners at the owner's expense. If a property owner does not wish to participate in the proposed SID or is on a limited income,there are three options: • Property owners have the opportunity to file a protest at or before 5:00 p.m. on the llth day of April 2006 to the City Recorder's Office or appear at the protest hearing on April 11th at 7:00 p.m.;however,in order for the District not to be created, the number of protests must represent 50 percent or more of the total lineal front footage within the District. • If an assessed property owner within the District has a"combined family income at or below the very low income level guidelines established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in its 'Income Limits for Housing and Community Developments,Section 8 Program for Salt Lake City and Ogden,Utah SMSA,"' the property owner may be eligible for low income deferment. The property must be residential and owner occupied to be eligible for low income deferment,and an owner must submit an application with the City. The deferment agreements are reviewed on a semi-annual basis to verify property ownership and the current economic status of the property owner. Upcoming action before the Council will include: • City Council protest hearing,April 11,2006. 3 • Resolution creating the Special Improvement District,resolution accepting a bid for construction work, and a resolution to amend the Special Improvement District to include new property. • Resolution appointing a Board of Equalization and setting the date for the Board of Equalization hearing. • Ordinance confirming the assessment rolls and levying assessments. • Resolution authorizing the issuance and providing the sale of bonds. CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,Rick Graham, Louis Zunguze, Gary Mumford,Dan Mule,Tim Harpst,Max Peterson,Dan Noziska,Diana Karrenberg,Gwen Springmeyer,Chris Bramhall,Susan Finlayson,Karen Carruthers, and Garth Limburg 4 FEB 2::5 SALT @ R1PO°IlI0i 1 RICHARD GRAHAM - ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 7 ell TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: February 21, 2006 Chief Administrative Officer RA A FROM: Rick Graham, Director I v7 Public Services Department SUBJECT: Notice of Intention, Protest Hearing and Authorization to Advertise for Bids. Strongs Court, (#102109) and Fenway Avenue (#102129) Reconstruction Special Improvement District STAFF CONTACT: Daniel C. Noziska, P.E., Senior Project Manager, 535-7958 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution declaring its intent to create the district, to fix a time and place for protests, and authorize the City Engineer to advertise for construction bids. BUDGET IMPACT: Monies are provided from the Salt Lake City Capital Improvement Budget, Public Utilities Department Water and Storm Drain Budgets and property owner assessments through the Special Improvement District. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The property owners on Fenway Avenue and Strongs Court have requested these private streets be reconstructed to City standards with new utilities and pavement and be dedicated to the City. The Special Improvement District will only be created if at least one of the streets supports the creation of the District and become a dedicated public way. The Strongs Court (#102109) and Fenway Avenue (#102129) Reconstruction Special Improvement District involves the total reconstruction of these streets with new water systems, storm drain systems and concrete pavement. Strongs Court would also receive new streetlights. Attached is an information sheet, site map, draft of the Notice of Intention, a schedule of meetings and a draft of the letter to property owners. PUBLIC PROCESS: An informal meeting is scheduled for March 30, 2006 at 349 South 200 East and a protest hearing is scheduled before the City Council on April 11, 2006. SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 1 CO, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: BO1-535-7961 FAX: H01-535-6093 /� L: R ViJ/J E . Eo P.PEA INFORMATION SHEET Strongs Court (#102109) and Fenway Avenue (#102129) Reconstruction Special Improvement District DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS: The improvements for Strongs Court (#102109) involve the complete reconstruction of the roadway and include concrete pavement, gutters, sidewalk, water facilities, driveway approaches, and street lighting. The improvements for Fenway Avenue (#102129) involve the complete reconstruction of the roadway and include concrete pavement, gutters, sidewalk, water facilities, and driveway approaches. All other necessary improvements shall be constructed according to plans, profiles and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: The project will be funded from the Salt Lake City Capital Improvement budget, Public Utilities Department budgets and property owner assessments through the Special Improvement District. TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS: Strongs Court (#102109) • Property Owners $ 82,940.00 (Rate $125.67/LF) • Salt Lake City Funds $ 84,348.00 • Public Utility Department $ 28,120.00 • Total $195,408.00 Fenway Avenue (#102129) • Property Owners $ 81,161.00 (Rate $116.78/LF) • Salt Lake City Funds $ 82,727.00 • Public Utility Department $ 27,788.00 • Total $191,676.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEUDLE • Awarded Contract May, 2006 • Start Construction June, 2006 • Complete Construction September, 2006 STRONGS COURT (#102109) and FENWAY AVENUE (#102129) SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 300 SOUTH t F- cn N LLJ o / � Lii o � / O o cc U 0 i 400 SOUTH 600 SOUTH t 1-- Lii ,../.. i /m./il W N 0 FENWAY AVE 0 0 0 No 700 SOUTH PROJECT SITES / LIMITS Salt Lake City, Utah March 7, 2006 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, was held on Tuesday, the 7th day of March, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., at the offices of the City Council at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, at which meeting there were present and answering roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: David L. Buhler Chair Van Blair Turner Vice Chair Carlton Christensen Councilmember K. Eric Jergensen Councilmember Nancy Saxton Councilmember Soren Dahl Simonsen Councilmember Jill Remington Love Councilmember Also present: Ross C. Anderson Mayor Edwin P. Rutan, II City Attorney Deputy City Recorder Absent: After the meeting had been duly called to order and other matters not pertinent to this resolution had been discussed, the City Recorder presented to the Council a Certificate of Compliance with Open Meeting Law with respect to this 7th day of March, 2006, meeting, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Thereupon the following proceedings, among others, were duly had and taken: The following resolution was introduced in writing, was read by title, and Councilmember moved its adoption: DMWEST#6363998 v1 • RESOLUTION NO. _of 2006 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY CONSISTING OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAYS, INCLUDING INSTALLATION OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT, GUTTERS, SIDEWALK, WATER FACILITIES, DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, STREET LIGHTING, AND ALL OTHER MISCELLANEOUS WORK NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE IMPROVEMENTS IN A PROPER AND WORKMANLIKE MANNER; TO CREATE THE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH STRONGS COURT (#102109) AND FENWAY AVENUE (#102129) RECONSTRUCTION SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (THE "DISTRICT"); TO PAY THE IMPROVEMENT COSTS AND EXPENSES BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTY BENEFITED BY SUCH IMPROVEMENTS; TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO AUTHORIZE SUCH IMPROVEMENTS AND TO FIX A TIME AND PLACE FOR PROTESTS AGAINST SUCH IMPROVEMENTS, ASSESSMENTS OR THE CREATION OF THE DISTRICT; TO DECLARE ITS OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FOR EXPENDITURES PAID BY IT PRIOR TO THE SALE OF BONDS; AND TO AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION BIDS AND RELATED MATTERS. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah(the"City"), as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby determines that it will be in the best interest of the City to reconstruct roadways, including concrete pavement, gutters, sidewalks, water facilities, driveway approaches, street lighting, and related improvements (collectively, the "Improvements") within the herein described district; and to complete the whole in a proper and workmanlike manner according to plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer in Salt Lake City, Utah. To finance the costs of the Improvements, the City Council proposes to create and establish a special assessment district. A description of the proposed Improvements and special assessment district is more particularly described in the Notice of Intention hereinafter set forth. Section 2. The proposed special assessment district shall be known as "Salt Lake City, Utah Strongs Court(#102109) and Fenway Avenue (#102129) Reconstruction Special Improvement District" (the "District"). Section 3. The costs of the proposed Improvements shall be paid by a special assessment to be levied against the property fronting or abutting upon or adjacent to the Improvements or which may be affected or specially benefited by any of such Improvements. The costs shall be paid in not more than ten (10) annual installments with interest on the unpaid balance until due and paid. DMWEST#6363998 v1 2 Section 4. Written protests against the proposed Improvements, assessments or against the creation of the District must be presented and filed in the Office of the Chief Deputy City Recorder on or before 5:00 p.m. on the 11th day of April, 2006. Thereafter at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, the 1lth day of April, 2006, at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, any such protests shall be heard and considered by the City Council. The City Recorder is hereby directed to give notice of the City's intention to install the proposed Improvements and to assess for the costs thereof and of the time within which protests against the proposed Improvements, the proposed assessments or the creation of the District may be filed and the date when such protests will be heard and considered by publishing a notice of intention to create the District (the "Notice of Intention") in the Deseret Morning News, a newspaper of general circulation in the City, said Notice of Intention to be published four times, once during each week for four consecutive weeks, the last publication to be not less than five (5) nor more than twenty (20) days prior to the time fixed in the Notice of Intention as the last day for the filing of protests. In addition, the City Recorder shall mail a copy of the Notice of Intention by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to each owner of land to be assessed within the proposed District at the last known address of such owner, using for such purpose the names and addresses of said owners appearing on the last completed real property assessment rolls of Salt Lake County, Utah, and, in addition, a copy of the Notice of Intention shall be mailed, postage prepaid, addressed to "Owner" at the street number of each piece of improved property, if any, to be affected by the assessment, said Notice to be so mailed not later than ten (10) days after the first publication of the Notice of Intention. If a street number has not been so assigned, then the post office box, rural route number, or any other mailing address of the improved property shall be used for the mailing of the Notice of Intention. Said Notice of Intention shall be in substantially the following form: DMWEST#6363998 vi 3 NOTICE OF INTENTION PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 7th day of March, 2006, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), adopted a resolution declaring its intention to create a special assessment district to be known as Strongs Court (#102109) and Fenway Avenue (#102129) Reconstruction Special Improvement District, (the "District"). It is the intention of the City Council to install improvements within or adjacent to the District, and to levy special assessments as provided in Title 17A, Chapter 3, Part 3, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, on the real estate lying within the District for the benefit of which such assessments are to be assessed in the making of such improvements. DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT AND LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENTS The proposed District will be created and improvements will be constructed within the boundaries of Salt Lake City, Utah. The boundaries of the District include all property abutting or fronting on the following street sections: 1. Strongs Court(845 East) between 340 South and 400 South, both sides. 2. Fenway Avenue (635 South) between 1240 East and 1200 East, both sides. INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS The improvements ("Improvements") for Strongs Court (#102109) involve the reconstruction of the roadway and include concrete pavement, gutters, sidewalk, water facilities, driveway approaches, and street lighting. All other necessary things shall be done to complete the improvements according to plans, profiles, and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer. The Improvements for Fenway Avenue (#102129) involve the reconstruction of the roadway and include concrete pavement, gutters, sidewalk, water facilities, and driveway approaches. All other necessary things shall be done to complete the improvements according to plans, profiles, and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer. NONCONFORMING IMPROVEMENTS All nonconforming improvements such as lawns, shrubs, hedges, sprinkling systems, rock gardens, driveways, curb, gutters, culverts, walks, fences, etc., which have been built or installed by abutting property owners must be removed by the property owners at their expense prior to the commencement of construction of the Improvements. If these nonconforming improvements are not removed by the property owners, they will be removed by the contractor and disposed of as directed by the City Engineer, all at the owners' expense. DMWEST#6363998 v1 4 BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT All abutting property to be improved within the District will be assessed fifty percent (50%) of the construction costs of the Improvements plus administrative costs, funding of reserves and other expenses described hereafter. The remaining portion of the construction cost will be paid by the City. The estimated rates shown in the table captioned, "Improvements and Estimated Costs"take into account the fifty percent (50%) discount, where applicable. In conjunction with the construction of the Improvements, the City also intends to construct storm drain improvements and water improvements, the costs of which will not be assessed to benefited properties. Benefited properties will be assessed by lineal front footage (LF). ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS The City Engineer's total estimated cost of the Improvements for Strongs Court (#102109), plus the estimated cost of storm drainage and water improvements is $195,408 of which it is anticipated the City will pay approximately $112,468 (the "City's Portion"). The remainder of approximately $82,940 shall be paid by a special assessment levied against the properties in the District. The City Engineer's total estimated cost of the Improvements for Fenway Avenue (#102129), plus the estimated cost of storm drainage and water improvements is $191,676 of which it is anticipated the City will pay approximately $110,515 (the "City's Portion"). The remainder of approximately$81,161 shall be paid by a special assessment levied against the properties in the District. The special assessment amounts are to be levied against the properties abutting the streets which are affected or specifically benefited by such Improvements. The actual commitment of the City to pay its portion of the costs of Improvements is subject to the availability of funds and compliance with budget approval. No assessable costs will be incurred unless and until the City has completed the budgeting process as to its estimated portion of the costs of the proposed Improvements and has determined the availability of funds. The estimated property owners' costs include the construction cost to complete the item of work, engineering expenses, a portion of a debt service reserve, allowance for the interest on interim warrants, if any, issued to finance construction of the Improvements and ten percent (10%) for bonding, administrative costs, a possible underwriter's discount on the sale of bonds, legal and other costs in connection with the issuance of assessment bonds. The estimated cost to be assessed against the properties within the District shall be as follows: DMWEST#6363998 v1 5 IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS 1. Strongs Court(#102109) Assessment Estimated Improvements Unit Cost/Unit Cost Concrete Roadway, Water Main and Lineal Front street lights Footage $125.67 $82,940 Property Owner's Estimated Cost of Improvements $82,940 2. Fenway Avenue (#102129) Assessment Estimated Improvements Unit Cost/Unit Cost Lineal Front Concrete Roadway and Water Main Footage $116.78 $81,161 Property Owner's Estimated Cost of Improvements $81,161 PROPERTY OWNERS' PORTION OF COSTS $164,101 CITY'S PORTION OF COSTS $222,983 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $387,084 LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS The proposed assessments shall be paid by a special assessment levied against the properties abutting the streets to be improved and upon property which may be affected or specifically benefited by such Improvements. The rates will be equal and uniform based on benefits received, but under the Salt Lake City Code, the City's portion varies depending on factors such as the use of properties to be assessed. The adjustment for the City's portion has been taken into account in the table above so that the estimated costs per unit represent the net estimated unit cost to be assessed to the property owners. It is the intention of the City to levy assessments as provided by the laws of the State of Utah on all parcels and lots of real property within the District benefiting from DMWEST#6363998 v1 6 the Improvements. The purpose of the assessments and levy is to pay for those costs of the subject Improvements. The method of assessment for the Improvements shall be by lineal front feet (LF). Assessments may be paid by property owners in ten (10) approximately equal annual installments. In order to fund the first annual interest payment on assessment bonds of the District, the first payment date of an assessment installment may be less than one year from the date of adoption of the assessment ordinance. Thereafter, assessment installments will fall due on the anniversary date of the first assessment payment date. Interest will accrue on the unpaid balance at a rate or rates to be fixed by the City Treasurer. The whole or any part of the assessment may be paid without interest within fifteen (15) days after the ordinance levying the assessment becomes effective. The assessments shall be levied according to the benefits to be derived by each property owner within the District. Other payment provisions and enforcement remedies shall be in accordance with Title 17A, Chapter 3, Part 3, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. TIME FOR FILING PROTESTS Any person who is the owner of record of property proposed to be assessed in the District described in this Notice of Intention shall have the right to file, in writing, a protest against the creation of the District, or to make any other objections relating thereto. Protests shall describe or otherwise identify the street name and property of record by the person or persons making the protest and shall indicate the total lineal front footage represented by said protest. Protests shall be filed in writing with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, either in person during regular business hours Monday through Friday, or by mail on or before the date of the hearing at 5:00 p.m. on the 11th day of April, 2006 at the offices of the City Recorder located in Room 415, City and County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. Thereafter, at 7:00 p.m. on the 11th day of April, 2006, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, will meet in a public meeting at the offices of the City Council to consider all protests so filed and hear all objections relating to the proposed District. CALCULATION OF PROTEST RATE After such consideration and determination, the City Council shall adopt a resolution either abandoning the District or creating the District either as described in this Notice of Intention or with deletions and changes made as authorized by law; but the City Council shall abandon the District and not create the same if the necessary number of protests as provided herein have been filed on or before the time specified in this Notice of Intention for the filing of protests after eliminating from such filed protests: (i) protests relating to property or relating to a type of improvement which has been deleted from the District and (ii) protests which have been withdrawn in writing prior to the conclusion of the hearing. A protest rate shall be determined for each street, i.e., Strongs Court (#102109) or Fenway Avenue (#102129), by totaling the proposed lineal front footage for the property DMWEST#6363998 v1 7 owners filing written protests on each street and dividing it by the total assessable front footage on the applicable street. After written protests have been determined, the City Council shall delete a street from the District if the total lineal front footage represented by the protests with respect to that street exceeds fifty percent(50%) of the total lineal front footage of said street. DEFERRAL OF ASSESSMENT Assessments shall be levied in accordance to the benefits received; however, when the owner of a residence abutting the Improvements shall have a combined family income at or below the very low income level guidelines established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in its "Income Limits for Housing and Community Developments, Section 8 Program for Salt Lake City and Ogden, Utah SMSA", as amended from time to time, the property may be eligible for a low income deferment. Such owner must file an application with the City in order for the payments required to be deferred. To be eligible for a low income deferment, the property must be residential and owner occupied. Application for deferment of annual installments will be accepted throughout the entire life of the District from prior to the Board of Equalization meetings through the expiration date. The property owners will be required to submit documentation of their income to the City for an evaluation for a deferment. Initially, completed applications will be reviewed by the SID Coordinator in the City Treasurer's Office. The deferment agreements will be reviewed on a semi-annual basis to verify property ownership, and the current economic status of the owner. If property ownership has changed, the new owner will be notified that the deferment agreement must be satisfied within 30 days or the deferment status will be void and all delinquent interest and charges will be imposed. DISABILITY INFORMATION In compliance with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) the following information is provided: FAX No. (801) 535-6093 TDD No. (801) 535-6021 Attention Engineering Division (801) 535-7961 If assistance is needed, please contact this office 24 hours in advance. DMWEST#6363998 v1 8 APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH. By: Deputy City Recorder Published in the Deseret Morning News Publication Dates: March 13, 20, 27, and April 3, 2006. DMWEST#6363998 v1 9 Section 5. The City Council reasonably expects, and hereby confirms its prior expressions of intent, to reimburse the City from proceeds of tax exempt assessment bonds for capital expenditures paid by the City (whether or not such expenditures are paid from proceeds of interim warrants)with respect to the Improvements. Section 6. This declaration is intended to be a declaration of official intent under Treasury Regulation § 1.103-18(1). Section 7. The maximum principal amount of debt expected to be issued for reimbursement purposes is $165,000. This amount may be reduced by cash payments received by the City from property owners who elect to pay their assessment, in whole or in part, during the cash payment period immediately following the effective date of the assessment ordinance. Section 8. This declaration of official intent is consistent with the City's budgetary and financial circumstances. No funds from sources other than tax exempt assessment bonds are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside by the Council or by any member of the same controlled group pursuant to their budget or financial policies with respect to the expenditures to be reimbursed. Section 9. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to prepare notices which call for bids for the furnishing of materials and the acquisition and installation of Improvements contemplated to be made in the District, and the City Recorder is hereby authorized to publish such notices calling for bids as least one time in the Deseret Morning News, a newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake City, at least fifteen (15) days before the date specified in the notice for the receipt of bids. Councilmember seconded the motion to adopt the foregoing resolution. The motion and resolution were unanimously adopted on the following recorded vote: Those voting AYE: Those voting NAY: DMWEST#6363998 v1 10 After the conduct of other business not pertinent to the above, the meeting was, on motion duly made and seconded, adjourned. (SEAL) By: Chair ATTEST: By: Deputy City Recorder DMWEST#6363998 v1 1 1 PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing resolution was presented to the Mayor for his approval or disapproval on this day of , 2006. By: Chair MAYOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of , 2006. By: Mayor DMWEST#6363998 v1 12 STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I , the duly chosen, qualified, and acting Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, do hereby certify as follows: 1. That the foregoing typewritten pages constitute a full, true and correct copy of the record of proceedings of the City Council taken at a regular meeting thereof held in said City on the 7th day of March, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., insofar as said proceedings relate to the consideration and adoption of a resolution declaring the intention of the City Council to create the Salt Lake City, Utah Strongs Court (#102109) and Fenway Avenue (#102129) Reconstruction Special Improvement District and make certain Improvements therein described as the same appears of record in my office; that I personally attended said meeting, and that the proceedings were in fact held as in said minutes specified. 2. That due, legal and timely notice of said meeting was served upon all members as required by law and the rules and ordinances of said City. 3. That the above resolution was deposited in my office on the 7th day of March, 2006, has been recorded by me, and is a part of the permanent records of Salt Lake City, Utah. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and affixed the seal of said City this the 7th day of March, 2006. (SEAL) By: Deputy City Recorder DMWEST#6363998 v1 13 CALENDAR OF EVENTS SALT LAKE CITY SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Strongs Court (102109) & Fenway Avenue (102129), Reconstruction Construction Phase Date Event Feb 21, 2006 Engineering sends Municipal Council (the "Council") action letter to adopt Notice of Intention. Feb 21, 2006 Description of improvements and areas to be improved furnished by City Engineer to Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll("Bond Counsel"). Feb 28, 2006 Legal documents transmitted from Bond Counsel to Salt Lake City (the "City") and the "Financial Advisor"). RE: Notice of Intention. Mar 7, 2006 Council adopts Notice of Intention to create District and authorizes advertisement for bids. Mar 13, 2006 First publication of Notice of Intention. Mar 20, 2006 Second publication of Notice of Intention. Mar 20, 2006 Mailing (within 10 days from the first publication) of the Notice of Intention to (1) each owner within the Special Improvement District and(2) each street address,post office box,rural route or other mailing address to "Owner". Mar 27, 2006 Third publication of Notice of Intention. Apr 1, 2006 Publication of the Notice to Contractors calling for bids. Apr 3, 2006 Fourth publication of Notice of Intention. April 3, 2006 Informal information meeting. Date Event Apr 11, 2006 Deadline for filing written protests. Apr 11, 2006 Protest hearing council date. Apr 14, 2006 Legal documents prepared by Bond Counsel. RE: Bid Opening Summary. Apr 18, 2006 Tabulation of protests furnished to Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll. Apr 18, 2006 Council sent action letter to create District. Apr 18, 2006 Protests and creation of District transmitted from Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll to the City and Wells Fargo. Apr 19, 2006 Bids opened, tabulated and reported. May 1, 2006 Mayor signs street dedication. May 9, 2006 Council adopts a resolution creating the Special Improvement District. May 9, 2006 Council adopts a resolution awarding the contract to the best bidder. May 9, 2006 Council adopts a resolution amending the Special Improvement District to include new property. May 11, 2006 Award of construction contract and provisions for interim financing transmitted from Bond Counsel to the City and the Financial Advisor. May 12, 2006 File a copy of the Notice of intention and the Resolution creating the Special Improvement District and proposed Assessment List with the County Recorder. To be determined Construction begins. To be determined Interim payments made to contractor. SRICHARD GRAHAM `` '=., r!a GT�Yr C�1111�© �{1,OL ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR February 20, 2006 Reference: Strongs Court (#102109) and Fenway Avenue (#102129) Special Improvement District Dear Property Owner: We wish to inform you that your property is within the proposed Special Improvement District. The District is on two separate noncontiguous streets and consists of the following: 1. Strongs Court (845 East) between 340 and 400 South 2. Fenway Avenue (635 South) between 1240 East and 1200 East The improvements for Strongs Court and Fenway Avenue involve the roadway and include concrete pavement, gutters, sidewalk, water facilities and driveway approaches, Strongs Court will also receive new streetlights. The project will be funded from the Salt Lake City Capital Improvement budget, Public Utilities Department budgets and property owner assessments through the Special Improvement District. In order for the work to proceed, the required number of Property Owners on your street must be in favor of creating the district. As the property owner of record, you have the right to file a written protest against the creation of the Special Improvement District, or make any other objections relating thereto. Protests shall include a property description or otherwise identify the property being protested. Protest shall be filed with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 11, 2006. The City Council will hold a public meeting at 7:00 p.m. April 11, 2006 in the City Council Chamber to consider all protests so filed and hear all objection related to the proposed District. A protest rate shall be determined for each street [I. Strongs Court (#102109), II. Fenway Avenue (102129) - by totaling the proposed lineal front footage for the property owners filing written protest on each street and dividing it by the total assessable front footage on each street. SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 1 00, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7961 FAX: 801-535-6093 ®RECYCLED PAPER After the written protest rate has been determined, the City Council, at its discretion, may delete a street form the District if the protest rate for that street exceeds fifty percent (50%) and create a modified District. The City Council will rescind its intention to create a District if the protest rate for each street exceeds fifty percent (50%). The following "Informal Public Meeting is scheduled to review the project with interested Property Owners: April 3, 2006 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. First Floor Conference Room 349 South 200 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Please note attendance at this meeting does not take the place of written protests. Those wishing to protest must follow the procedures outlined in the :Notice of Intention". The following are attached to this letter for your information and use: 1. The Notice of Intention 2. Preliminary estimate of the scheduled quantities of work and proposed assessable cost for your property. 3. Answers to most commonly asked questions. If you have any questions concerning this project and are unable to attend the meeting, please feel free to contact Daniel C. Noziska, P.E. at 535-7958 or Richard A. Johnston, P.E. at 535-6232, 349 South 200 East, Suite 100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. Sincerely, er on, P.E. City Engineer MGP:DCN:jmw Attachments cc: Richard A. Johnston Daniel C. Noziska File STRONGS COURT (#102109) & Fenway Avenue (#102129) SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ANSWERS TO THE MOST COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1. In regards to the Owner's Preliminary Estimate, are the amounts shown thereon my costs or does the City pay 1/2 of those costs? Answer: The amount shown on the Owner's Preliminary Estimate is the estimated cost the property owner pays. The City will pay a matching amount which is not shown on the Preliminary Estimate. 2. How were the unit costs for the rates determined? Answer: The unit costs are estimates only. The costs were based upon bid prices the City received for similar projects constructed in 2005. Administrative, engineering and bond costs have been added to the unit costs. 3. I am on a fixed income. What allowance is being made for abatement of these special improvement district assessments? Answer: No abatement is provided in this special improvement district. Deferment of assessment, however, is being provided and is described in the notice of intention. "Owner must file an application with the City Treasurer, in order for the payments to be deferred. To be eligible for low income deferment, the property must be residential and owner occupied." Completed applications for deferment will be reviewed by the City Treasurer to verify ownership and the current economic status of the owner. "If and when the deferment requirements are no longer met, the current owner will be notified that the deferment agreement must be satisfied within 30 days or the deferment status will be void and all delinquent interest and charges will be imposed." For more information call Mr. Garth Limburg of the City Treasurer's Office at 535-6431. 4. I want to protest this district. 1) Whom do I address my written protest to? 2) Where do I send my protest? 3) Are verbal protests used in determining the protest rate? Answer #1: Address your protest to Salt Lake City Recorder. In your written protest, you must identify the property address. The protest must be made by property owner of record or person having the power of attorney. Answer #2: Send your protest to the Salt Lake City Recorder, Room 415, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84111. Answer#3: Verbal protests are not used in determining the protest rate. To be considered for purposes of rejection of the district, all protests must be written. 5. If I protest, what happen then? Answer: Your written protest will be used to establish the protest rate for your street. If more than 50 percent of the assessed footage on your street protest the district, it will not be included in the District and made a public street. 6. Will the City's contractor do work for me on my property? If so, how will I be billed, or do I have to pay the Contractor myself? Answer: The City will not contract to do work on property outside of the street right-of- way. If the property owner desires to have work done by the City's contractor on the property owner's property, the City will not be a party to that contract. The City will not bill the property owner for work which is contracted between the property owner and the City's contractor. 7. What are my options for paying off the assessment? Answer: When the work in the Special Improvement District is completed, actual costs to be assessed to property owners will be determined. Property owners will be given the option of paying the assessment in full without interest within fifteen (15) days after the ordinance levying the assessment becomes effective, or paying the assessment in ten (10) annual installments. The installments will include interest on the unpaid balance at a rate fixed by the bond market. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: March 3,2006 SUBJECT: Resolution for Notice of Intention to install new decorative street lights on Yale Avenue (1080 S.)from 1300 East to 1500 East,Special Improvement District 106029; and set protest hearing date of April 11,2006 AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: 6 STAFF REPORT BY: Jan Aramaki,Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Department of Community Development AND CONTACT PERSON: Tim Harpst,Transportation Director,and Michael Barry,Transportation Engineer FILE LOCATIONS: Community Development/Yale Avenue from 1300 East to 1500 East streets SID 106029 POTENTIAL MOTIONS: 1. ["I move that the Council"] Set the protest hearing date of April 11,2006 at 7:00 p.m. to accept protests and adopt the resolution(declaring the Intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,to construct improvements within the City consisting of the installation of decorative street lighting poles, and all other miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements in a proper workmanlike manner;to levy an assessment to operate and maintain said street lighting facilities;to create the Salt Lake City, Utah Yale Avenue 1300 East to 1500 East street lighting Special Improvement District LC- 106029 ("The District");to pay the acquisition and installation costs and expenses and the operation and maintenance costs of said improvements by special assessments to be levied against the property benefited by such improvements;to provide Notice of Intention to authorize such improvements and to fix a time and place for protests against such improvements, assessments or the creation of the District; to declare its official intent to reimburse itself for expenditures paid by it prior to the sale of bonds;and to authorize advertisement of construction bids and related matters). 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt the resolution. KEY ELEMENTS: (Resolution) According to the Administration,a petition that was circulated around the Yale Avenue neighborhood for new decorative street lights received significant support. As the first step in creating the process to establish the Special Improvement District(SID) No. 106029,the Administration is requesting that the Council adopt a resolution declaring the Notice of Intention to construct improvements within the City consisting of the installation of 23 new decorative street lights (12 foot high concrete decorative poles)along both sides of Yale Avenue between 1300 East and 1500 East streets and setting a protest hearing date of April 11,2006. 1 There are 49 properties that have been identified along both sides of the street. The Administration has provided a map showing property locations (attached).Projected construction schedule indicates work to begin around June/July 2006 with an anticipated completion date of September 2006. The cost for design,construction management,purchase and installation of the improvements, and bonding is estimated at$200,000 paid by the District property owners-amounts to an estimated acquisition cost that will be assessed against the properties on a per lot basis of$4,000 which shall be paid in not more than ten(10) annual installments with interest on the unpaid balance until due and paid. The annual operating,maintenance and electrical energy costs is estimated at$1500.Therefore, the estimated maintenance costs that will be assessed against the properties on a per lot basis is an estimated first year assessment of$30. The property owners' portion(75 percent)is$1,125,and the City's portion(25 percent)of the annual expenses is$375,which is included in the City's non- departmental operating budget. The City Council may ask why this particular SID is an estimated$30 per lot assessment cost compared to the recent Rose Park SID's operating and maintenance(O&M) assessment cost of$7. Council staff understands that the reason for the higher cost for this particular SID is there are twice as many property owners in Rose Park per light than along Yale Avenue. If a property owner does not wish to participate in the proposed SID,a property owner has the opportunity to file a protest on or before 5:00 p.m.on the 11th day of April 2006 to the City Recorder's Office or has the opportunity to attend the protest hearing on Apri111,2006 at 7:00 p.m. In order for the District not to be created,the necessary number of protests must represent 50 percent or more of the total lots to be assessed. Upcoming action before the Council will include: • City Council protest hearing,April 11,2006. • Resolution creating the Special Improvement District,resolution accepting a bid for construction work,and a resolution to amend the Special Improvement District to include new property. • Resolution appointing a Board of Equalization and setting the date for the Board of Equalization hearing. • Ordinance confirming the assessment rolls and levying assessments. • Resolution authorizing the issuance and providing the sale of bonds. CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,Louis Zunguze,Gary Mumford,Dan Mule,Tim Harpst,Michael Barry,Diana Karrenberg,Annette Daley,Chris Bramhall, Susan Finlayson,Karen Carruthers,and Garth Limburg 2 FEB r A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE \...,�'\ '�11\'U LW CrlIL �e�I�,�r►�� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMIT7. 1 1 TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officelt D TE: ebruary 27, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Directo RE: Notice of Intention for Yale Avenue, 1300 East to 1500 East, treet Lighting Special Improvement District, Job No. 106029 STAFF CONTACT: Tim Harpst, Transportation Director, at 535-6630 or tim.harpst@slcgov.com Michael Barry, Transportation Engineer, at 535-7147 or michael.barry@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: Creation of the Special Improvement District and installation of 23 new decorative street lights will increase street light operation and maintenance costs by $375 per year. Street light operation and maintenance is paid from the City's non-departmental budget. DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: The Transportation Division was contacted by a resident of Yale Avenue with regard to installing new decorative street lights on Yale Avenue from 1300 East to 1500 East. The resident circulated a petition which indicated significant support for the creation of a Street Light Special Improvement District. Upon receipt of the signed petition,the Transportation Division initiated proceedings to create the Special Improvement District. A Calendar of Events is included in Attachment 1. Analysis: The annual operating, maintenance and electrical energy costs for the district is estimated at$1500.00. The City pays 25%of the annual expenses ($375.00)and the residents pay the remaining 75%($1,125.00). The City's portion is included in the City's non- departmental operating budget. The cost for design, construction management,purchase and installation of the improvements, and bonding is estimated at$200,000.00 which is paid by the property owners within the district. There are 49 properties within the proposed district as shown on the parcel map (Attachment 3). Master Plan Considerations: This project is consistent with the City's Street Light Master Plan. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-71 05 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM `= accrc�Eo vnvea PUBLIC PROCESS: The City Council should consider adopting the Resolution(Attachment 2) pertaining to Street Lighting Special Improvement District Project 106029, located Yale Avenue, 1300 East to 1500 East. Property owners may protest the creation of the Special Improvement District as outlined in the Notice of Intention(Attachment 2). If at least half of the property owners (29) file a protest before the time and date specified in the Notice of Intention,the City Council shall not create the Special Improvement District. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: None Yale Avenue Street Lighting SID Page 2 of 2 Attachment 1 Calendar of Events for Proposed Yale Avenue, 1300 East to 1500 East, Street Lighting Special Improvement District Project No. 106029 CALENDAR OF EVENTS SALT LAKE CITY SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Yale Avenue, 1300 East to 1500 East Street Lighting SID Job # 106029 Construction Phase Date Event Feb 21, 2006 Transportation Engineer sends Municipal Council (the "Council") action letter to adopt Notice of Intention. Feb 21, 2006 Description of improvements and areas to be improved furnished by Transportation Engineer to Ballard Spahr Andrews&Ingersoll ("Bond Counsel"). Feb 22, 2006 Informal information meeting. Feb 28, 2006 Legal documents transmitted from Bond Counsel to Salt Lake City (the "City")and the"Financial Advisor"). RE:Notice of Intention. Mar 7, 2006 Council adopts Notice of Intention to create District and authorizes advertisement for bids. Mar 13, 2006 First publication of Notice of Intention. Mar 20, 2006 Second publication of Notice of Intention. Mar 20, 2006 Mailing(within 10 days from the first publication)of the Notice of Intention to (1) each owner within the Special Improvement District and(2)each street address,post office box, rural route or other mailing address to "Owner". Mar 27, 2006 Third publication of Notice of Intention. Apr 3, 2006 Fourth publication of Notice of Intention. Apr 8, 2006 Publication of the Notice to Contractors calling for bids. Date Event Apr 11, 2006 Deadline for filing written protests. Apr 11, 2006 Protest hearing council date. Apr 14, 2006 Legal documents prepared by Bond Counsel. RE: Bid Opening Summary. Apr 18, 2006 Tabulation of protests furnished to Ballard Spahr Andrews& Ingersoll. Apr 18, 2006 Council sent action letter to create District. Apr 18, 2006 Protests and creation of District transmitted from Ballard Spahr Andrews &Ingersoll to the City and Wells Fargo. Apr 26, 2006 Bids opened, tabulated and reported. May 9, 2006 Council adopts a resolution creating the Special Improvement District. May 9, 2006 Council adopts a resolution awarding the contract to the best bidder. May 9, 2006 Council adopts a resolution amending the Special Improvement District to include new property. May 11,2006 Award of construction contract and provisions for interim financing transmitted from Bond Counsel to the City and the Financial Advisor. May 12,2006 File a copy of the Notice of intention and the Resolution creating the Special Improvement District and proposed Assessment List with the County Recorder. To be determined Construction begins. To be determined Interim payments made to contractor. Attachment 2 Notice of Intention for Proposed Yale Avenue, 1300 East to 1500 East, Street Lighting Special Improvement District Project No. 106029 Salt Lake City, Utah March 7, 2006 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, was held on Tuesday, the 7th day of March, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., at the offices of the City Council at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, at which meeting there were present and answering roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: David L. Buhler Chair Van Blair Turner Vice Chair Soren Dahl Simonsen Councilmember Carlton Christensen Councilmember Nancy Saxton Councilmember Jill Remington Love Councilmember K. Eric Jergensen Councilmember Also present: Ross C. Anderson Mayor Edwin P. Rutan, II City Attorney Deputy City Recorder Absent: After the meeting had been duly called to order and other matters not pertinent to this resolution had been discussed, the City Recorder presented to the Council a Certificate of Compliance with Open Meeting Law with respect to this 7th day of March, 2006,meeting, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Thereupon the following proceedings, among others, were duly had and taken: The following resolution was introduced in writing, was read by title, and Councilmember moved its adoption: DMWEST#1164316 v2 1 RESOLUTION NO. of 2006 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY CONSISTING OF THE INSTALLATION OF DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTING POLES, AND ALL OTHER MISCELLANEOUS WORK NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE IMPROVEMENTS IN A PROPER WORKMANLIKE MANNER; TO LEVY AN ASSESSMENT TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN SAID STREET LIGHTING FACILITIES; TO CREATE THE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH YALE AVENUE 1300 EAST TO 1500 EAST STREET LIGHTING SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LC- 106029 (THE "DISTRICT"); TO PAY THE ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION COSTS AND EXPENSES AND THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTY BENEFITED BY SUCH IMPROVEMENTS; TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO AUTHORIZE SUCH IMPROVEMENTS AND TO FIX A TIME AND PLACE FOR PROTESTS AGAINST SUCH IMPROVEMENTS, ASSESSMENTS OR THE CREATION OF THE DISTRICT; TO DECLARE ITS OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FOR EXPENDITURES PAID BY IT PRIOR TO THE SALE OF BONDS; AND TO AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION BIDS AND RELATED MATTERS. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah(the "City"), as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby determines that it will be in the best interest of the City to install decorative street lighting poles (the "Improvements"); and to complete the whole in a proper and workmanlike manner according to plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer in Salt Lake City, Utah. The City Council proposes to create and establish a special improvement district. The City Council further intends to finance the costs of electrical power and other operation and maintenance expenses for the Improvements. To finance the acquisition and installation costs of the Improvements (the "Acquisition Costs") and the operation and maintenance costs thereof(the "Maintenance Costs"), the City Council proposes to create and establish a special improvement district. Section 2. A description of the proposed Improvements and special improvement district is more particularly described in the Notice of Intention hereinafter set forth. Section 3. The proposed special improvement district shall be known as "Salt Lake City, Utah Yale Avenue 1300 East to 1500 East Street Lighting Special Improvement District LC-106029" (the "District"). DMWEST#1164316 v2 2 Section 4. The Acquisition Costs of the proposed Improvements and the first year's Maintenance Costs shall be paid by a special assessment to be levied against the property fronting or abutting upon or adjacent to the Improvements or which may be affected or specially benefited by any of such Improvements. The Acquisition Costs shall be paid in not more than ten (10) annual installments with interest on the unpaid balance until due and paid. The Maintenance Costs for the first year shall be assessed as provided herein, and shall be due and payable in whole within 15 days after the effective date of the assessment ordinance imposing said assessments. After the first year the assessment for Maintenance Costs may be modified or adjusted annually based upon the actual historical experience of the City in operating and maintaining the Improvements as herein described. Section 5. Written protests against the proposed Improvements or against the creation of the District must be presented and filed in the Office of the City Recorder on or before the day of the hearing on Tuesday, the 11th day of April, 2006, at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, any such protests shall be heard and considered by the City Council. The City Recorder is hereby directed to give notice of the City's intention to acquire and install the proposed Improvements and to assess for the Acquisition Costs and Maintenance Costs thereof and of the time within which protests against the proposed Improvements, the proposed assessments or the creation of the District may be filed and the date when such protests will be heard and considered by publishing a notice of intention to create the District (the "Notice of Intention") in the Deseret Morning News, a newspaper of general circulation in the City, said Notice of Intention to be published four times, once during each week for four consecutive weeks, the last publication to be not less than five (5) nor more than twenty (20) days prior to the time fixed in the Notice of Intention as the last day for the filing of protests. In addition, the City Recorder shall mail a copy of the Notice of Intention by United States Mail,postage prepaid, to each owner of land to be assessed within the proposed District at the last known address of such owner, using for such purpose the names and addresses of said owners appearing on the last completed real property assessment rolls of Salt Lake County, Utah, and, in addition, a copy of the Notice of Intention shall be mailed, postage prepaid, addressed to"Owner" at the street number of each piece of improved property, if any, to be affected by the assessment, said Notice to be so mailed not later than ten (10) days after the first publication of the Notice of Intention. If a street number has not been so assigned, then the post office box, rural route number, or any other mailing address of the improved property shall be used for the mailing of the Notice of Intention. Said Notice of Intention shall be in substantially the following form: DMW EST#1164316 v2 3 NOTICE OF INTENTION PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 7th day of March, 2006, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City Council"), adopted a resolution declaring its intention to create a special improvement district to be known as the Salt Lake City, Utah Yale Avenue 1300 East to 1500 East Street Lighting Special Improvement District LC-106029 (the "District"). It is the intention of the City Council to acquire and install improvements within or adjacent to the District, to operate and maintain said improvements and to levy special assessments as provided in Title 17A, Chapter 3, Part 3, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, on the real estate lying within the District for the benefit of which such assessments are to be assessed in the making of such improvements and in the operation and maintenance thereof. DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT The proposed District shall include all property within the following boundaries: All properties fronting or abutting Yale Avenue from 1300 East Street to 1500 East Street on both sides. INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS The improvements (the "Improvements") to be acquired and installed include the installation of 12 foot high concrete decorative poles along all the streets within the boundaries of the District. In addition, the City intends to assess for the estimated operation and maintenance costs of the Improvements as herein described. ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS The total acquisition and installation costs (the "Acquisition Costs") of Improvements in the District including overhead costs is estimated to be approximately $200,000 which shall be paid by a special assessment to be levied against the property which may be affected or specifically benefited by such Improvements. The property owners' portion of the total estimated Acquisition Costs of the Improvements may be financed during the construction period by the use of interim warrants, in which case the interest on said warrants will be assessed to the property owners. The estimated assessments include estimated overhead costs which the City projects to incur in the creation and administration of the District. The property owners' portion of the annual operation and maintenance costs (the "Maintenance Costs") of the Improvements is estimated to be in the aggregate amount of $1,500 for the first year. The Maintenance Costs shall be paid by a special assessment which will be levied and payable annually against the properties abutting upon the streets to be improved or which may be affected or specially benefited by the Improvements. DMWEST#1164316 v2 4 METHOD OF ASSESSMENT Acquisition Costs The estimated Acquisition Costs of the proposed Improvements, including overhead costs, will be assessed against the properties on a per lot basis as follows: Improvements Estimated Assessment Method of Assessment All above-described $4,000 Per Lot Improvements Maintenance Costs The estimated Maintenance Costs will be assessed against the properties on a per lot basis as follows: Estimated Assessment for First Year Method of Assessment $30 Per Lot LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS It is the intention of the City to levy assessments as provided by the laws of Utah and upon approval by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on all parcels and lots of real property to be benefited by the proposed Improvements within the District as described herein. The purpose of the assessment and levy is to pay the costs of the Improvements and Maintenance Costs which the City will not assume and pay. The method of assessment shall be a per lot method as set forth herein. The assessments for the Acquisition Costs may be paid by property owners in not more than ten (10) annual installments with interest on the unpaid balance at a rate or rates fixed by the City, or the whole or any part of the assessment may be paid without interest within fifteen (15) days after the ordinance levying the assessment becomes effective. The assessments for the Maintenance Costs for the first year shall be due and payable within fifteen 15 days after the effective date of the assessment ordinance imposing said assessments. The assessments shall be levied according to the benefits to be derived by each property within the District. Other payment provisions and enforcement remedies shall be in accordance with Title 17A, Chapter 3, Part 3, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. A map of the proposed District, copies of plans of the proposed Improvements and other related information are on file in the office of the City Engineer who will make such information available to all interested persons. DMWEST#1164316 v2 5 TIME FOR FILING PROTESTS Any person who is the owner of record of property to be assessed in the District described in this Notice of Intention shall have the right to file in writing a protest against the creation of the District or to make any other objections relating thereto. Protests shall describe or otherwise identify the property owned of record by the person or persons making the protest and shall indicate the total lots represented by said protest. Protests shall be filed in writing with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, either in person during regular business hours Monday through Friday or by mail on or before the date of the hearing on the 11th day of April, 2006 at the offices of the City Recorder located in Room 415, City and County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt lake City, Utah 84111. The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, will meet in public meeting at the offices of the City Council to consider all protests so filed and hear all objections relating to the proposed District. After such consideration and determination, the City Council shall adopt a resolution either abandoning the District or creating the District either as described in this Notice of Intention or with deletions and changes made as authorized by law; but the City Council shall abandon the District and not create the same if the necessary number of protests as provided herein have been filed on or before the time specified in this Notice of Intention for the filing of protests after eliminating from such filed protests: (i) protests relating to property or relating to a type of improvement which has been deleted from the District and (ii) protests which have been withdrawn in writing prior to the conclusion of the hearing. The necessary number of protests shall mean the aggregate of the following: Protests representing one-half of the total lots to be assessed. DMW EST#1164316 v2 6 APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH By: Deputy City Recorder Published in the Deseret Morning News Publication Dates: March 13, 20, 27 and April 3, 2006. DMW EST#1164316 v2 7 Section 6. The City Council reasonably expects, and hereby confirms its prior expressions of intent, to reimburse the City from proceeds of tax exempt assessment bonds for capital expenditures paid by the City (whether or not such expenditures are paid from proceeds of interim warrants) with respect to the Improvements. Section 7. This declaration is intended to be a declaration of official intent under Treasury Regulation § 1.103-18(1). Section 8. The maximum principal amount of debt expected to be issued for reimbursement purposes is $200,000. This amount may be reduced by cash payments received by the City from property owners who elect to pay their assessment in whole or in part during the cash payment period immediately following the effective date of the assessment ordinance. Section 9. This declaration of official intent is consistent with the City's budgetary and financial circumstances. No funds from sources other than tax exempt assessment bonds are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside by the Council or by any member of the same controlled group pursuant to their budget or financial policies with respect to the expenditures to be reimbursed. Section 10. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to prepare notices which call for bids for the furnishing of materials and installation of Improvements contemplated to be made in the District, and the City Recorder is hereby authorized to publish such notices calling for bids as least one time in the Deseret Morning News, a newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake City, at least fifteen (15) days before the date specified in the notice for the receipt of bids. Councilmember seconded the motion to adopt the foregoing resolution. The motion and resolution were unanimously adopted on the following recorded vote: Those voting AYE: Those voting NAY: DMWEST#1164316 v2 8 After the conduct of other business not pertinent to the above, the meeting was, on motion duly made and seconded, adjourned. (SEAL) By: Chair ATTEST: By: Deputy City Recorder DMW EST#1164316 v2 9 PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing resolution was presented to the Mayor for his approval or disapproval on day of , 2006. By: Chair MAYOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of , 2006. By: Mayor DMW EST#1164316 v2 10 STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, , the duly chosen, qualified, and acting Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify as follows: 1. That the foregoing typewritten pages constitute a full, true and correct copy of the record of proceedings of the City Council taken at a regular meeting thereof held in said City on the 7th day of March, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., insofar as said proceedings relate to the consideration and adoption of a resolution declaring the intention of the City Council to create the Yale Avenue 1300 East to 1500 East Street Lighting Special Improvement District LC-106029 and make certain Improvements therein described as the same appears of record in my office; that I personally attended said meeting, and that the proceedings were in fact held as in said minutes specified. 2. That due, legal and timely notice of said meeting was served upon all members as required by law and the rules and ordinances of said City. 3. That the above resolution was deposited in my office on the 7th day of March, 2006, has been recorded by me, and is a part of the permanent records of Salt Lake City, Utah. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and affixed the seal of said City this the 7th day of March, 2006. (SEAL) By: Deputy City Recorder DMW EST#1164316 v2 1 1 STATE OF UTAH ) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING :ss. NOTICE OF INTENTION COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, , the duly chosen, qualified, and acting Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify that the attached Notice of Intention was approved and adopted in the proceedings of the City Council held on Tuesday, the 7th day of March, 2006. I further certify that on the day of , 2006 (a date not later than ten (10) days after the first publication of the Notice of Intention), I mailed a true copy of the Notice of Intention to create Salt Lake City, Utah Yale Avenue 1300 East to 1500 East Street Lighting Special Improvement District LC-106029 by United States Mail, postage prepaid to each owner of land to be assessed within the proposed Special Improvement District at the last known address of such owner, using for such purpose the names and addresses appearing on the last completed real property assessment rolls of Salt Lake County, and in addition I mailed on the same date a copy of said Notice of Intention addressed to "Owner" addressed to the street number, post office box, rural route number, or other mailing address of each piece of improved property to be affected by the assessment. I further certify that a certified copy of said Notice of Intention, together with profiles of the improvements and a map of the proposed District, was on file in my office for inspection by any interested parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, this day of , 2006. (SEAL) By: Deputy City Recorder DMW EST#1164316 v2 12 (Affidavit of proof of publication of the Notice of Intention to create the Salt Lake City, Utah Yale Avenue 1300 East to 1500 East Lighting Special Improvement District. DMW EST#1164316 v2 13 EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I, , the undersigned Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, do hereby certify, according to the records of the City Council in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-6(2), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the 7th day of March, 2006, public meeting held by the City Council as follows: (a) By causing a Notice in the form attached hereto as Schedule A, to be posted at the offices of the Salt Lake City Council on the day of February, 2006, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting; and (b) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule A, to be delivered to the Deseret Morning News on the _ day of February, 2006, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. In addition, the Notice of 2006 Annual Meeting Schedule for the City Council (attached hereto as Schedule 2) was given specifying the date, time and place of the regular meetings of the City Council to be held during the year, by causing said Notice to be posted on the day of , 200_, at the principal office of the City Council and by causing a copy of said Notice to be provided to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the City on the day of ,200_. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this the 7th day of March, 2006. (SEAL) By: Deputy City Recorder • DMWEST#1164316 v2 1 SCHEDULE 1 NOTICE OF MEETING DMW EST#1164316 v2 2 SCHEDULE 2 NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING SCHEDULE DMW EST#1164316 v2 3 Attachment 3 Parcel Map for Proposed Yale Avenue, 1300 East to 1500 East, Street Lighting Special Improvement District Project No. 106029 ' : X. S7 \l 1 2 O. i"P 1 3 0051 1 %),.,' __ _.......� __ V • yy O as; AF ,;IMP d 7plu� 9914 LsbL r 69bL Z9bl = h �� 179171, C 1111111k �.ti bbbL Z Z 0 m , 0 ] 11.: OOv o 1:4 N 9EbL O e M • (I) 6Zbl• Oen w m �\ i-- ° OZbI w U LL N j• 6LbL Y p H co_... ....... Q p ZLbL CDH C2 0 l 144 C.) o 80b1 SObL `''''' 00b1 aoart 0 06EL . 98£l W • PRE L8£L O . ZL£L O LLEL C J L9£l 09£1, o _ • L9£L 89EL ^^'' W L9£L Zge l • 6b£L C^, W E4EL bb£I. > : L££L - LZ£L OE£I. --'-. LZ£L bLEL j 13 • OS O I. £OE I. �g° • CO • W U 00£L Z y ...._ `V / a Q • {c : SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: March 3,2006 SUBJECT: Petitions 400-05-08&400-05-09—Roland Hall—St. Mark's School request to: • Rezone property located at approximately 1443 Fact Sunnyside Avenue from Open Space OS to Institutional I • Amend the East Bench Community Master Plan AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the rezoning and master plan amendment will affect Council District 6 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Everett Joyce, Senior Planner NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Newspaper advertisement and written notification to surrounding property owners 14 days prior to the Public Hearing KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared for Council consideration to: 1. Rezone approximately 13 acres of property at approximately 1443 E. Sunnyside Avenue(currently owned by Mt. Olivet Cemetery)from Open Space OS to Institutional I.(Note:The property is within the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. The overlay district requirements and standards would still apply with the proposed rezoning.) 2. Amend the East Bench Community Master Plan. B. Prior to adoption of the 1995 city-wide Zoning Rewrite,the East Bench Master Plan identified this property for institutional land uses and the property was zoned Residential R-2. The R-2 zoning accommodated a variety of institutional and open space uses such as schools(public&private), churches,public parks, libraries,recreational areas and cemeteries. The City did not have a specific zoning classification for institutional and open space uses. C. Between 1874 and 1909 through acts of Congress the Mt. Olivet Cemetery was established. Land was conveyed to the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association and rules and regulations for the cemetery were established specifically noting that the subject property is to be used permanently as a cemetery. The written documentation from this time period indicates that if the land ceases to be used as a cemetery the property will revert to the United States. In actuality this can be changed through an act of Congress. (Please see Attachment A for additional information.) C 1 D. The ordinance adopted in 1995 that enacted the city-wide Zoning Rewrite project rezoned property throughout the City and amended the adopted community master plans to maintain consistency with the new zoning. The zoning on this property was changed to Open Space and the East Bench Plan was considered updated consistent with the zoning. (The Institutional Zoning District does not allow cemeteries as a permitted or conditional use. The Open Space Zoning District does allow cemeteries as a permitted use.) E. The requested rezoning and master plan amendment would facilitate development of a future private middle and upper school for Rowland Hall-St. Mark's with a soccer field and open space area on the southern two-thirds of the 13-acre parcel and school buildings and parking areas on the northern one- third of the property. The property is currently undeveloped. The Planning staff report notes that the property, if developed as proposed,would have access from Sunnyside Avenue and Guardsman Way through the adjacent property. The adjacent property immediately east of the Mt.Olivet property is the Rowland Hall-St. Mark's McCarthey Lower/Beginning School campus. Surrounding land uses include the Mt. Olivet Cemetery to the north, single-family residences to the south,the East High football field (on property leased from Mt. Olivet to the west),the McCarthey Lower/Beginning School campus and the Carmen Pingree School. (Please see attached maps for details.) F. Information submitted by Rowland Hall-St. Mark's notes: 1. On April 10,2003,Rowland Hall-St. Mark's entered into a contract with the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association to purchase approximately 13 acres of cemetery property fronting on Sunnyside Avenue. 2. The Mt. Olivet Association needs to sell the property to have sufficient funds to make needed capital improvements and perpetually maintain the cemetery. 3. The contract between Rowland Hall-St. Mark's and the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association is subject to a number of conditions including rezoning the property from Open Space OS to Institutional I zoning classification and removal of the reversionary clause established by the Federal government in the deed held by the Association. 4. Release of reversionary interest includes Congressional consideration of the following: a. The property is not used for the purpose specified in the reversionary clause. b. The owner of the property no longer needs the property. c. The property is inconvenient or inappropriate for the owner's use. d. The property is needed by another entity that provides some public benefit. e. The U.S. Government does not need the property. f. There would be no significant costs to Federal, State or local governments from a release of the reversionary interest 5. As part of Rowland Hall-St.Mark's efforts to secure the removal of the reversionary interest and to ensure the support of Utah's congressional representatives and senators,Rowland Hall-St.Mark's needs the support of the City and, if at all possible,the surrounding community. 6. Rowland Hall-St. Mark's needs to obtain the release of the reversionary interest by early 2007 in order to complete the purchase of the property within the terms of the contract. 7. Rowland Hall-St. Mark's believes that its ownership of the property will deliver a net benefit to the City and the surrounding community, both in the immediate neighborhood and more broadly. 8. It may be many years before Rowland Hall-St. Mark's could raise the money needed to build a new campus on the property. 9. It is possible that Rowland Hall-St. Mark's could take the interim step of developing the playing fields in the near term, in a way not to interfere with construction at the north end of the property (proposed school site). 2 G. The public process included: 1. Presentation to the Yalecrest Community Council and written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to surrounding property owners. The Administration's transmittal notes the Yalecrest Community Council opposed the proposed master plan and zone change. In addition, other Community Councils-East Central,Bonneville Hills, and Wasatch Hollow-submitted letters regarding the proposal. None of the Community Councils supported the request. (Please see the Planning staff report pgs 6-9 for details.) 2. The proposal was also presented to and discussed by the Open Space Lands Advisory Board on November 2, 8, and 16,2005. The Open Space Lands Advisory Board recommended against the request to rezone the Mt.Olivet property from Open Space to Institutional. H. The City's Fire,Police,Public Services and Public Utilities Departments and Transportation and Engineering Divisions have reviewed the request. (Please see the Planning staff report pgs. 3-5 for specific comments and detailed discussion.) The development proposal will be required to comply with City standards and regulations and demonstrate that there are adequate services to meet the needs of the project such as,but not limited to, a detailed traffic and parking impact study,adequate infrastructure (water/sewer)capacity,geotechnical report relating to inferred fault line location is at the northwest corner of the property. In addition,the petitioner will be required to apply for subdivision approval from the City. I. On November 30,2005,based on the Planning staff report findings and public hearing input,the Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the request to rezone the property and amend the East Bench Community Master Plan. (Please see the Planning staff report and Planning Commission minutes for details.) J. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearing included the following. The Planning Commission minutes note that due to amount of public interest regarding the proposed petition,the general public comments were summarized. 1. Information provided from the Community Councils and the Open Space Lands Advisory Board. 2. Whether the rezoning and master plan amendment should be considered before the reversionary clause on the property is removed by Congress. 3. Specific uses and requirements in the Open Space and Institutional zones. 4. Discussion of specific details of the development plan proposed by Rowland Hall-St.Mark's. 5. Potential inconsistencies of the City's open space policies,specifically the City's position on the North Salt Lake property and preservation of the Mt.Olivet property. 6. Those in support of the petition stated the following reasons: • Open Space should be defined as a livable area,rather than a field with trash and a barbed wire fence. • • Care of the land would be maintained in a manner to make the City proud,as Rowland Hall has previously proved itself in the Avenues area. • The desire of Rowland Hall for the proposed petition is not to ask for an increase in school population,but rather a request for more space. • Many other options could be considered by the Mt.Olivet Association to sell the property for financial gain, including federal or state government who are exempt from specific zoning requirements;while Rowland Hall is proposing a petition to enhance the City within the guidelines. • An assurance for the land to be maintained as a mechanism for public use will be considered in a deed restriction. • Only four of thirteen acres will be used for buildings, lending the remainder to the community. 3 • Open Space is a rhetorical term in Utah; given the many options for a specific definition and should consider the terms of being a usable and livable place for the public. ii • The present lease on Mt. Olivet has more impervious area than the proposed petition. • Traffic will be decreased as the proposed plan will create a unified school area. (Families with students attending schools on this campus can make single trips to this site,rather than trips to various sites.) 7. Those in opposition of the petition stated the following reasons: • Open Space is a natural area of land and should be preserved as a legacy. • Traffic in the area will increase—reducing the safety of the surrounding area. • Mt. Olivet Association has not found enough resources to financially sustain itself,and more time should be allowed for tools to be provided to the association and for the preservation of Open Space. • The value of an area of land for the earth to recharge itself is immeasurable and should be considered a premium space for the community. • Open Space is found less often as city growth continues. • Tools for rating the degree of importance of Open Space are being researched,and given time, will be considered as possible trading options. (This was taken directly from the Planning Commission minutes. Council staff does not have additional information that would clarify the intent of this statement.) • The land is irreplaceable. K. Planning Staff Findings and Recommendation 1. The Planning staff report provides the following findings for the Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.50.050- Standards for General Amendments. The standards were evaluated in the Planning 1,k staff report and considered by the Planning Commission. (Please see pgs. 13-17 in the Planning staff report for additional details.) a. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals,objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Findings: Land use designations in the adopted master plans identify the City's policy for future land uses. Properties that do not conform to the master plan objectives are either, developed with a nonconforming use or undeveloped. Undeveloped properties do not conflict with the Future Land Use Plan. A zoning amendment to an Institutional zoning classification does not ensure continued open space use of the property. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the purposes, goals,objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Modification of the Open Space zoning boundaries for a portion of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property would set precedent for removal of additional properties within the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association boundaries not actively used for burial purposes from the Open Space designation. b. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Findings: The proposed development plan presented by Rowland Hall St.Mark's is harmonious with the overall character of existing development. However,the Institutional zoning classification allows development intensification that would not be harmonious with the character of existing development. 4 c. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Findings: Rezoning the Mt Olivet parcel to Institutional would permit more intensive development than allowed within the existing Open Space Zoning District. The increased level of potential development could increase traffic generation levels and impact adjacent properties. The traffic generated by the proposed uses of an upper and middle school,soccer field and open space would not adversely affect adjacent properties. d. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Findings: The proposed development concept plans through implementation of any necessary site design modifications and operational controls can be consistent with applicable zoning overlay districts. e. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways,parks and recreational facilities,police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems,water supplies,and waste water and refuse collection. Findings: The public facility services and utilities are in place to serve the subject 13-acre parcel. The final intensity of development and needs that the future development would place on services and utilities is unknown. If a specific developments demand exceeds service capacity,then the developer would be required to make system improvements as part of obtaining a building permit. The adjacent arterial streets can absorb the traffic generated by the proposed uses. 2. The Planning staff report provides the following fmdings for the requested master plan amendment. a. Land use designations in master plans identify the City's policy for future land uses. Developed properties that do not conform to the master plan objectives and existing zoning are nonconforming. Properties that lie in an undeveloped state do not conflict with the Future Land Use Plans. The amended East Bench Community Master Plan land use designation for the Mt. Olivet property is for open space uses. b. Operational financing difficulties could be alleviated by lease or sale of property to land uses that are consistent with the East Bench Master Plan Future Land Use designation and existing Open Space Zoning classification. 3. Recommendation: a. The findings of fact show that the requested master plan amendment and rezoning of the Mt. Olivet property is not consistent with the East Bench Community Master Plan. Rezoning the property from open space to institutional land uses is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the Open Space Zoning District. This purpose is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas. b. Potential development intensities of the Institutional Zoning District are greater than permitted uses within the Open Space Zoning District and have potential conflicts with the overall character of development in the immediate vicinity. Minimizing potential intensities and conflicts could occur through restrictive covenants or modification of the zoning request to ensure that the proposed open space areas would remain open in the future. c. Based on the findings of fact, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the requests of Petition 400-05-08 and Petition 400- 05-09,to amend the East Bench Master Plan and rezone the 13 acres portion of Mt. Olivet Cemetery property from Open Space to Institutional land use and zoning classifications. C 5 L. Zoning Information 1. The purpose of the Open Space Zoning District is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas. a. Area requirements: • Minimum lot size: 10,000 sq. ft. • Maximum building height: 35 ft.provided that for each foot of height over 20 ft. each yard and landscaped yard requirement shall be increased 1 ft. • Minimum yard requirements: front—30 ft., side—20 ft., rear—30 ft. • Landscaped yard requirements: front—20 ft., side(interior)— 10 ft.,rear— 10 ft. • Landscape buffer required when abutting a residential district b. Special conditional use controls over communications towers are required. c. Permitted and conditional uses: cemeteries and accessory crematoriums, community/recreation centers,pet cemetery,country clubs,golf courses, natural open space,conservation areas, public/private nature preserves/conservation areas,public parks, private recreational facilities,zoological park, accessory uses,public/private utility buildings/transmission wires/poles/pipes,transportation terminals—bus/rail/trucking 2. The purpose of the Institutional Zoning District is to regulate the development of larger public and semi- public uses in a manner harmonious with surrounding uses. The uses regulated by this district are generally those having multiple buildings on a campus-like site. a. Area requirements: • Minimum lot size: 2 acres for places of worship and 20,000 sq. ft. for other uses • Maximum building height: 35 ft. and 75 ft.through conditional use provided that for each foot of height over 35 ft. each yard requirement shall be increased 1 ft. • Minimum yard requirements: front—20 ft., side—20 ft., rear—25 ft. • Landscaped yard requirements: front—20 ft., side(interior)—8 ft., rear—8 ft. • Landscape buffer required when abutting a residential district b. Traffic and parking study required. New or expansion of institutional uses shall not be permitted unless the traffic and parking study provides clear and convincing evidence that no significant impacts will occur. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement c. Lighting—all uses shall provide adequate lighting to assure safety and security. Lighting installations shall not have an adverse impact on traffic safety or surrounding properties and uses and shall be shielded to minimize light spillover onto adjacent properties. d. Permitted and conditional uses: congregate care facility, caretaker/security guard living quarters, government offices, accessory retail sales/services within the principal building operated for employees, adult/child daycare centers, community/recreation centers,conference centers,dental/medical laboratories/research facilities/clinics/offices, medical/nursing schools,emergency response/medical service facilities, nursing care/sanitarium facilities, exhibition hall,hospitals, libraries, meeting halls for membership organizations, philanthropic uses,places or worship,religious assembly with exhibit hall, convents/monasteries,reuse of schools/churches, seminaries/religious institutes, colleges/universities, private schools K-12, professional/vocational schools,arenas, stadiums, fairgrounds,museums,private recreational facilities,heliport,accessory uses, bed and breakfast facilities,communication towers, off-site parking,park and ride parking with existing use, parking structure,public/private utility buildings/transmission wires/poles/pipes,transportation terminals—bus/rail/trucking 6 MATTERS AT ISSUE /POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. Issues relating to this request have been raised in many different ways and in many different forums throughout the process. The core issues that the Council must weigh include: 1. Whether to amend the zoning and the master plan to allow this project to move forward and seek Congressional action to remove the reversionary clause from the deed and allow Mt.Olivet to sell the property. 2. Whether to continue the current policy to require the property be maintained as open space consistent with the current zoning and master plan and past legal action taken by the City. 3. Whether to take in to consideration the potential risk that, should the Council not approve the master plan amendment and rezoning,the University of Utah(not subject to City zoning regulations)could purchase and develop the property at a greater intensity than proposed by Rowland Hall-St.Mark's. The Council may wish to evaluate whether that potential risk is significant enough that it justifies the rezoning for a lower intensity to preclude potential higher intensity use. (Please see Attachments B and C for additional information.) 4. If the Council does approve the request,the Council could consider the use of a development agreement,restrictive covenant and/or conservation easement to provide assurance to the community that the proposed development would occur as presented at the time of the rezoning request and provide an additional level of control on the property. a. The Planning staff report notes that minimizing potential intensities and conflicts could occur through restrictive covenants or modification of the zoning request to ensure that the proposed open space areas would remain open in the future. b. The petitioner's information notes : • It may be many years before Rowland Hall-St.Mark's could raise the money needed to build a new campus on the property. • It is possible that Rowland Hall-St. Mark's could take the interim step of developing the playing fields in the near term, in a way not to interfere with construction at the north end of the property(proposed school site). B. The Planning staff report notes that a narrow parcel along the northwest corner of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property is presently zoned RMF-75. Planning staff recommended that the Planning Commission initiate action to have the RMF-75 zoned portion of the Mt. Olivet property for a map amendment as part of a zoning map fine-tuning petition. The Planning Commission minutes do not indicate that this action was initiated by the Commission. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration if this issue requires action by the Council or Planning Commission. C. Council Members may wish to consider a future discussion to establish a clear policy direction relating to cemeteries and open space. The Planning staff report includes the following information provided by the City Public Services Department. 1. Presently the City has no plans to either expand the(Salt Lake City)cemetery space(the only potential expansion would be into Lindsay Gardens Park)or start a second cemetery in a new location in the City. Any decision to move in this direction would result from a policy discussion and agreement between the Mayor and City Council. If the City fills the cemetery without further expansion or new development, other public or private cemeteries will need to fill the public demand. 7 • 2. Development of the Salt Lake City Cemetery started in 1847. The cemetery is approximately 250 acres in size and plotted for 140,823 graves. The entire cemetery space is plotted out and developed. There is no additional space for expansion. To date, approximately 119,000 plots are used. Of the 21,800 remaining, 17,300 have been pre-sold. Only 4,500 burial sites remain for sale. Historically, on an annual basis approximately 600 burials occur each year. If the historical numbers hold,use of all available cemetery sites will occur within 36 years. The historical cemetery sales rate is 350 graves sites each year. Based on the 4,500 available burial sites for sale and historical sale rates, in 13 years there will be no sites available. 3. The present day data suggests that the cemetery will use up its available burial space in 13 years. Within another 23 years, all burial sites will be filled. Beyond that point in time,the City will continue to fulfill its obligation to care for and maintain the cemetery in perpetuity without the offsetting annual revenue generated by property sales and burials. 4. Salt Lake City has one public cemetery,the Salt Lake City Cemetery. Four(4)additional active cemeteries are located within the boundaries of the City: Mt. Olivet, a private cemetery owned by a consortium of local churches;Mt. Calvary,a private cemetery owned by the Catholic Diocese; B'nai Israel Cemetery, a private cemetery owned by the Temple Kol Ami Synagogue; and Larkin Sunset Lawn, a private cemetery owned by the Larkin family. It is my understanding that the public has access to each of these cemeteries regardless of affiliation except B'nai. I also understand that with the exception of Mt. Olivet and Larkin cemeteries,the others face the same capacity challenges as the City's cemetery. 5. Though the City has a municipal cemetery that it must maintain and operate in perpetuity,the City has no legal obligation to maintain an"active"cemetery. 6. The following actions may extend the Cemetery's"active"period: a. The historical consumption numbers may change over time; b. Resale burial plots that have been sold, but have not been used in a 60 year period(this could add a few hundred graves to the inventory over time); c. Develop double deep burials, which means that one burial plot may be used for two burials; and d. The construction of mausoleums,which allow burials to occur above ground in structures. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report note: 1. The East Bench Community Master Plan and the Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan documents address the land use policy related to the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property. (Note: Amending the Open Space Plan is not required and is not part of Rowland Hall-St.Mark's request.) 2. Most master plans do not contain specific land use policy regarding cemeteries. The Plans do address a variety of general land use categories such as residential, commercial, open space and institutional land uses. 3. The East Bench Community Master Plan(April 1987)is the adopted land-use policy document that guides new development in the area surrounding the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. 4. Prior to the 1995 Zoning Rewrite project,the Plan designated the Mount Olivet Cemetery property and Sunset Lawns Memorial Cemetery located at 2352 East 1300 South Street for Institutional uses. 5. In 1995,the Citywide Zoning Rewrite Project amended the land use designation of both these properties from Institutional to Open Space. 6. The Salt Lake City Open Space Plan(October 1992)defined a comprehensive corridor approach to connecting the City's open space resources to provide a safe, enjoyable experience of the natural features of Salt Lake City. The Open Space Master Plan defines policy for connecting open space amenities and does not provide land use policy. The land use policy of open space for the Mt. Olivet property is defined in the amended East Bench Master Plan. 8 • B. The Open Space Master Plan identifies a system of non-motorized transportation corridors that would re- establish connections between urban and natural land forms of the City. The Plan discusses the value of open space including recreational opportunities and preservation of wildlife habitat,wetlands,riparian and stream corridors,and the foothills. 1. The Plan identifies the following goals: a. Conservation of the natural environment. b. Enhancement of open space amenities. c. Connecting various parts of the City to natural environments. d. Educating citizens on proper use of open space. 2. The Open Space Plan identifies Sunnyside Avenue and 800 South as part of the Transvalley Corridor (Foothill Section). A future trail corridor is shown along the north side of Sunnyside/800 South on the sidewalk/right-of-way. Specific reference to Mt. Olivet states"The north side of Sunnyside Avenue is lined with both private and public open space. The south half of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery parcel is vacant and could generate development pressure in the future. This should be monitored to assure the corridor is kept wide enough for adequate walkways and open space. A crosswalk could be developed to connect at the baseball area on the east side of 1300 East to the adjacent trail corridor and residential area." C. Several adopted community master plans and small area plans contain policies and recommendations that emphasize the need for preservation, acquisition,protection,maintenance and management of watershed,foothills,wetlands, wildlife habitat,riparian/stream corridors,and natural open spaces. Implementation strategies include a range of options such as refining zoning regulations relating to open lands. D. The City's recently adopted Open Lands Ordinance notes: 1. The need to protect diminishing open lands within Salt Lake City or its environs. 2. The City has adopted an Open Space Master Plan to identify,protect and manage open lands. 3. The City's general plan,zoning ordinance and site development ordinance recognize the need to protect the unique values offered by wetlands,foothills and urban trails. E. The Transportation Master Plan contains policy statements that include support of alternative forms of transportation,considering impacts on neighborhoods on at least an equal basis with impacts on transportation systems and giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. F. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly,convenient,and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. G. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. H. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. C 9 CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • April 21, 2005 Applicant presentation to the Yalecrest Community Council • April 25,2005 Petitions delivered to Planning office • June 1,2005 Petitions reassigned to planner • June 29,2005 Additional information received(requested by Planning Division) • November 2, 8,& 16,2005 Open Space Lands Advisory Board meetings • November 30,2005 Planning Commission hearing • December 13, 2005 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office cc: Sam Guevara,Rocky Fluhart,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Rick Graham,Lisa Romney,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Alex Ikefuna,Doug Wheelwright,Cheri Coffey,Everett Joyce,Jennifer Bruno,Jan Aramaki, Marge Harvey, Sylvia Jones, Lehua Weaver,Annette Daley,Barry Esham, Gwen Springmeyer File Location: Community Development Dept., Planning Division, Rezoning and Master Plan Amendment, Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School/Mt. Olivet,approximately 1443 E. Sunnyside Avenue 10 Page 1 of 1 Hardman, Ellie From: ANN CHEVES [anno@prodigy.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 12:05 PM To: Council Comments Cc: Mayor Subject: Rowland Hall-ST.M's Rezone request I live in District 4 and I urge you to deny the Rowland Hall-St.Mark's request to rezone the area adjacent to the school from open space to institutional. I live about 5 blocks from there and frequent it while exercising. Open space is an increasingly important value as the SLC growth becomes more dense. More urgent is the impact on water resources. Information indicates that the school would use the space for a sports field - and sports fields notoriously use massive amounts of water to maintain lawn-type grasses, as well as chemical pollutants such as fertilizers and pesticides. Actually, Rowland Hall St. Mark's has bountiful enough private funding to come up with better alternatives for sports. I should think that the school would have more up-to-date awareness about resource implications. The future would best be served and the best possible educational use of the space would be to use it as outdo or classroom for the natural sciences. After having attended the Stegner Symposium on Climate Change this past week-end I believe that children and youth must be better educated about care of our natural world as well as the many urgent resource issues we face in this new century. Lastly I add that I am an Episcopalian and while the school is no longer an Episcopal facility, it still has those ties and even considering that I am opposed to their rezone request. Ann Cheves 515 South 1000 East #602 SLC 84102 363-6395 3/7/2006 Hardman, Ellie From: Bell, Holly on behalf of Mayor Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 11:01 AM To: Council Comments Subject: FW: Please Keep Mt. Olivett Open Space FYI Holly Bell Staff Assistant Office of the Mayor 801.535.7714 I Phone 801.535.6331 I Fax holly.bell@slcgov.com 451 S. State Street, Rm. 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Without music, life would be a mistake - Friedrich Nietzsche, The Twilight of Idols Original Message From: beckerpr@comcast.net [mailto:beckerpr@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:23 AM To: Mayor Subject: Please Keep Mt. Olivett Open Space Dear City Council Members: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Open Space Advisory Board made wise decisions in opposing rezoning of open space land at Mt. Olivett to allow for development, whether by Rowland Hall, the University of Utah, or any other developer. Terry and I encourage you to stand firm against developing one of the city's very few natural landscapes. Other options are available for the school, and we and others have offered assistance (via one of the churches that hold title to Mt. Olivett) to help resolve its financial situation. Your decision to reject this amendment and to vote to protect this important piece of Salt Lake City's open space will tell a great story about your commitment to the city's future. Respectfully, John Becker S -� RMF-30 i ,.. ��,• ,. �,1� 1. ;� RMF-75 -----__ - __ _kilgi a A dorm Mel : fC -. •.c. a i A- 1.1.1 ._ . .....,... ., , , ..,.. .„„;,..tip e'te-74.1141111400"r11711!71,4 " -,-q..., Y: • il4 A, " f:" AI. *raw*<4k 'it ( r !I I ''. .'..* 11-i', 4 P : * ; . 1 10,414.. - 4 tb. . •'.1 .„ 1 <I 4 . A' - • it i4f-a M i --- '•f, �E_ ?Tsai o T - r .-. 1 L. ' ,..,. • fc-. • ., 1. I t .... — _ —30 _ill, -.' Subject _. �'• � OS .'t Property / inr-i � MI., - , _, : pp •, i , .,, !!' j . f r l i. ` pi - R=1 -5000 - �` lb ATTACHMENT A OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE MEETING June 18, 1997 (chronology updated June 2003) Mount Olivet Please note: The following data has been summarized from legal documents and information from the 1994 conditional use request from the Mount Olivet Cemetery Association. The intent is to provide general background information to the Open Space Committee members. • May 16, 1874 -Act of Congress. Mount Olivet Cemetery established. Twenty acres of Property was transferred from Fort Douglas to the Mount Olivet Cemetery Association. • January 22, 1877 - Secretary of War order setting aside 20 acres of land to be used as a public cemetery and establishing rules and regulations for the cemetery. • January and February, 1909 -Act of Congress. Additional land (approximately 50 acres) conveyed by the Federal government to Mount Olivet Cemetery Association in exchange for other property acquired by Mount Olivet. Property to be used permanently as a cemetery. If the land ceases to be used as a cemetery the property will revert to the United States. • 1914 - The Emigration Canyon Railroad Company was permitted to occupy a portion of the property for a railroad right of way. • 1952 -Mount Olivet Cemetery Association, with Congressional approval, deeded a portion of the Mount Olivet property to Salt Lake City to widen Sunnyside Avenue. • 1989- • A private golf training facility proposed to be located on vacant "reserve" cemetery property. The existing zoning was Residential "R-2". The East Bench Master Plan identified the property to be used for "institutional use". The existing zoning and the master plan would allow expansion of public or quasi-public institutional uses. • Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance text amendment approved. Text amendment allowed private recreational facilities in residential zones as a conditional use. • The proposed golf training facility was not constructed. • August, 1992 - Act of Congress. In addition to previous 1909 Act of Congress, Mount Olivet Cemetery Association allowed to lease, for a period of not more than 70 years, any portion of the land, so long as such additional use will not prevent future use for cemetery purposes. Proposed leases must be approved by the Federal government. Utah's Congressional Representative Wayne Owens, Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Jake Garn, sponsored this 1 ATTACHMENT A legislation. Discussions at that time centered around public or private recreational uses, specifically the proposed golf training facility. The City supported the proposal. o Representative Owens and Senator Hatch, in their addresses to Congress regarding the proposed legislation, identified the opportunity: • to provide recreational uses, specifically the proposed golf training facility; • to improve "a weeded, unattractive vacant lot"; • to utilize unproductive land for a recreational amenity; and • to reduce future development costs to Mount Olivet by providing irrigation systems and landscaping. • 1993 -Mount Olivet Cemetery Association entered into a 69 year lease agreement with the Salt Lake City School District allowing 15 acres of land to be used as a football stadium for East High School. The Department of Interior approved the lease as being consistent with the 1992 Act. • 1994- o Mount Olivet Cemetery Association entered into a lease agreement with Careage, Inc. for a 120-bed skilled nursing facility(initial lease period of 40 years with an option to renew for five additional five-year terms and an additional sixth term ending July 31, 2062). o Mount Olivet Cemetery Association entered into a lease agreement with Roland Hall-St. Mark's for approximately 10 acres to be used for athletic facilities. (same lease agreement as Careage, Inc.) The Roland Hall-St. Mark's lease was dependent upon Careage, Inc. to pay the infrastructure development costs. o Both leases required Mount Olivet Cemetery Association to submit a rezoning request to Salt Lake City. o The Department of Interior had not approved the leases. o December 8, 1994 - The Salt Lake City Planning Commission received a presentation from Mount Olivet Cemetery representatives relating to their concerns relative to the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Project. Proposed zoning for the property was Open Space "OS". The existing zoning was Residential "R-2". The East Bench Master Plan identified the property to be used for "institutional use". The existing zoning and the master plan would allow expansion of public or quasi-public institutional uses. • April, 1995 - The Zoning Ordinance Rewrite and zoning maps were adopted by the City Council. The Mount Olivet property was zoned Open Space "OS". As part of the adoption of the Zoning Rewrite, all City master plans were considered updated and consistent with the zoning maps. • July 17, 1995 - Careage, Inc. notified Mount Olivet Cemetery legal counsel that "as a result of the City's position, it had decided not to pursue the use and development of Mt. Olivet's 2 ATTACHMENT A property. As a result of Careage's withdrawal, Roland Hall-St. Mark's also decided not to pursue development of the property." • December 12, 1995 - Mount Olivet Cemetery Association entered into a lease agreement with Johnson Land Enterprises for a skilled nursing facility and retirement living facilities. The proposed project includes: Phase I - a 180-bed skilled nursing facility, a 170-unit assisted living and retirement facility, and a large therapy center; Phase II- an additional 170- unit assisted living and retirement facility and independent living cottages. The lease was submitted to the Federal government for approval. • January 10, 1996 - Letter from the Secretary of Interior's representative approving the lease and citing that the lease was "consistent with the 1992 Act." • February 9, 1996 - Letter from the Secretary of Interior's representative clarifying that the certification/approval was intended only to certify that the proposed lease "was not for a cemetery, and that the lease was not to exceed 70 years" and "there is no intent to override the authority of local jurisdictions to permit or approve the use of the property." • March, 1996 -Mount Olivet Cemetery Association and Johnson Land Enterprises law suit filed in District Court against Salt Lake City. • March 12, 1997—District Court hearing. • April, 1997 - The District Court rules in favor Salt Lake City, defendant, and against Mount Olivet Cemetery Association and Johnson Land Enterprises,plaintiffs. • December 10, 1998 —The 10th Circuit Court denied appeal and upheld the District Court decision. 3 ATTACHMENT B NOV-30-2005 WED 04:50 PM RESEARCH PARK 8015817195 P, 02 I Charles Evans Mount Olivet Property `; . . .-. .. _._ ...... .... . .. - Page r] 9 From: "Fred Esplin" <fred.esplin@utah,edu> To: <everett.joyce®sicgov.com> Date: Wed, Nov 30,2006 4:66 PM Subject: Mount Olivet Property Dear Mr. Joyce, I understand from Charles Evans that a number of parties have been making representations regarding the University of Utah's interest in the Mount Olivet property which Rowland Hall School is currently seeking to acquire. I am writing to confirm what, indeed, the University's position is with regard to this property. A number of years ago the University made a bid on the property in question, and was outbid by Rowland Hall School. Since that time we have not pursued the purchase of the property, nor do we have any plans at present to do so. Should the property become available at some point in the future for a reasonable price,we may be interested in looking into it's acquisition at that time. However,we are aware of the feelings of the neighbors about the development of this land and would, of course, take that into consideration in making such a decision. Sincerely, Fred Esplin Vice President for University Relations CC: "Charles Evans"<Charies.EvansQadmin.utah.edu> ATTACHMENT C U may still have shot at purchasing cemetery land Jed Layton Posted: 1/13/06 The U's attempt to purchase land from its neighbor, Mount Olivet Cemetery, is still alive if the Salt Lake City Council rejects Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School's bid to buy the land. Both the U and Rowland Hall-St. Mark's put up bids on the land, located just off 1300 East and 800 South, late last year. However, Rowland Hall was willing to offer more money than the U felt the land was worth, Charles Evans, director of Research Park, said. "We have tried to obtain the land for interim parking for three or four years," he said. "But they put up much more than we were willing to negotiate with." Bill Adams, president of the Mount Olivet Cemetery Board of Trustees, said the cemetery requires consolidation of its financial situation to continue to provide perpetual care for grounds. "We are in a position were we must obtain funds," he said. "We did not see raising fees as an option, so we opted to sell a portion of the land." Rowland Hall wants the land to build a new middle school and high school. However, Rowland Hall has recently met opposition from wealthy neighbors, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission and the Open Space Lands Advisory Board. The planning commission rejected the proposal by a 6-1 vote, while the board gave a disapproving recommendation on the grounds of negative traffic congestion and a desire to preserve land for cemetery use. Despite the rejections, Susan Koles, director of marketing and development for Rowland Hall, is confident that the Salt Lake City Council will still pass the proposal. "The planning commission gave a negative recommendation, but it is just that, a recommendation," she said. "The city council can make a choice on (its) own." Janice Jardine, secretary for the Salt Lake City Council, was unsure of when the issue would be placed on the council's agenda but said that for the proposal to be accepted, zoning requirements would have to be changed. If the city council does not pass the proposal, Bill Adams said Mount Olivet would have to reassess its options and find another buyer. Mark Woodland, assistant vice president for university marketing, said the U could become a potential buyer of the land. "The U could purchase the land if it became available again at a reasonable price," he said. Evans agreed, saying the U would likely explore an acquisition, but noted that, as of now, the U is not currently looking into buying any land. "Depending on if it becomes available and if Mount Olivet accepts a reasonable price, we would take a look at it," he said. I`\ �A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE �\ a�� 111� � �,OVf BOSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON �.... � DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR BRENT B. WILDE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSM L Q TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer i • E: J., uary 24, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Dir•ctor Ali ir RE: Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 by Rowland ' • ri,ark's School to amend the East Bench Master Plan and East Bench Zoning Map from an Open Space to an Institutional land-use designation and zoning classification for property located at approximately 1443 E. Sunnyside Avenue STAFF CONTACT: Everett L. Joyce, Senior Planner, 535-7930 or everett.joyce@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin:The applicant is requesting a Master Plan amendment and zoning classification amendment to accommodate the development of a future middle and upper school for Rowland Hall St. Mark's. The existing site is undeveloped. The conceptual land use plans submitted with the petition applications show a soccer field and open space area on the southern two-thirds of the 13-acre parcel and school buildings and parking areas on the northern one-third of the property (approximately four acres). The property is owned by Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association and subject to a federal restriction for use as a cemetery,which is a permitted use in the Open Space(OS) zone. If the City Council approves the requested Master Plan and zoning map amendments,the applicant will proceed with the process of obtaining approval from the Federal government to remove the reversionary restriction on the property. The applicant will also need to apply for subdivision approval to create a parcel for the 13-acre site. Analysis: The 1987 East Bench Master Plan designated the subject property as Institutional land use. However, adoption of the 1995 City-wide Zoning Rewrite Project amended the East Bench Master Plan and rezoned the property OS (Ordinance 26 of 1995). Therefore, the amended East Bench Master Plan designates the Mt. Olivet property as Open Space land use. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7105 FAX: 601-535-6005 Findings: The request by Rowland Hall St. Mark's School to rezone the Mt. Olivet property is not consistent with the East Bench Master Plan. Rezoning the property from Open Space to Institutional is not consistent with the intent and purpose of OS zoning, which is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas. The existing cemetery is a permitted use in an OS zone. Public Process: The proposal was presented to the Yalecrest Community Council on April 21, 2005. The Yalecrest Community Council opposed the proposed Master Plan and zone change. In addition, other Community Councils(East Central, Bonneville Hills,and Wasatch Hollow) submitted letters regarding the proposal, which are included in the attached Exhibit 4: Staff Report(pages 6-9). None of the Community Councils supported the request. The proposal was also presented to and discussed by the Open Space Lands Advisory Board on November 2, 8, and 16, 2005. The Open Space Lands Advisory Board recommended against the request to rezone the Mt. Olivet property from Open Space to Institutional. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the petition on November 30, 2005. Issues raised at the Public Hearing included the potential inconsistencies with the Open Space policies of the City, the potential increase in traffic,the reuse of the existing St. Mark's campus, and the lack of tools to evaluate open space land values to determine purchase or trade of lands to prevent a net loss of open space. Planning Commission Recommendation: Based on staff report findings and Public Hearing input,the Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the requests of Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09,to amend the East Bench Master Plan and rezone the 13-acre portion of Mt. Olivet Cemetery property from Open Space to Institutional land use and zoning classifications. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments A decision to amend the text of this title or the Zoning Map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the City Council should consider the following five factors: A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Petitions 400-05-08&400-05-09—Rowland Hall St.Mark's Request for a Zoning Amendment Page 2 of 3 D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities,police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems,water supplies,and waste water and refuse collection. These standards were evaluated in the Planning Commission staff report and considered by the Planning Commission. Discussion and findings for these standards are found on pages 13-17 of Exhibit 4: Staff Report(attached). Utah State Code Section 10-9a-503: Zoning Map Amendment,Section 10-9a-404: General Plan Amendment,and Section 10-9a-201: Required Notice The petitions for zoning and Master Plan amendment were published in the newspaper on November 15, 2005, meeting State code noticing requirements. Petitions 400-05-08&400-05-09—Rowland Hall St.Mark's Request for a Zoning Amendment Page 3 of 3 Table of Contents 1. Chronology 2. Ordinance 3. City Council Notice and Mailing List i. Hearing Notice ii. Mailing List 4. Planning Commission i. Public Hearing Notice and Postmark /Agenda ii. Newspaper Notice for Master Plan Amendment iii. Planning Commission minutes for November 30, 2005 iv. Planning Commission Staff Report v. Additional Information Submitted to Planning Commission 5. Original Petitions i. 400-05-08 Master Plan Amendment ii. 400-05-09 Zoning Amendment Exhibit 1 Chronology Chronology April 21, 2005 Applicant presented proposal to the Yalecrest Community Council April 25, 2005 Petitions delivered to the Planning office June 1, 2005 Petitions reassigned to Everett Joyce June 29, 2005 Received additional information from petitioner regarding review standards for zoning amendments July 5, 2005 Requested City departmental review of proposed master plan amendment and zoning map changes for the Mt. Olivet property October 10, 2005 Received comments from Public Services Department November 2, 2005 Petition presented to Open Space Lands Advisory Board November 8, 2005 Open Space Lands Advisory Board meeting November 15, 2005 Newspaper notice published November 15, 2005 Mailed notices for Planning Commission public hearing November 16, 2005 Open Space Lands Advisory Board meeting November 30, 2005 Planning Commission public hearing December 13, 2005 Ordinance request sent to City Attorney December 14, 2005 Planning Commission ratified minutes of November 30, 2005 meeting Exhibit 2 Ordinance Amending Master Plan and Rezoning Property SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2005 (Rezoning property generally located at 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue, and Amending the East Bench Master Plan) REZONING PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1443 EAST SUNNYSIDE AVENUE FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) TO INSTITUTIONAL(I), AND AMENDING THE EAST BENCH MASTER PLAN, PURSUANT TO PETITION NOS. 400-05-08 AND 400-05- 09. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed amendments to the Master Plan and change of zoning for the property generally located at 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue is appropriate for the development of the community in that area and in the best interest of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. REZONING OF PROPERTY. The property generally located at 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue, which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from open space (OS) to institutional (I). SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP. The Salt Lake City Zoning Map, adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning of property identified above. SECTION 3. AMENDMENT OF MASTER PLAN. The East Bench Master Plan, as previously adopted by the Salt Lake City Council, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning set forth herein. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2005. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM Bait a City A orneys Offic. CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Date 00 5- By (SEAL) Bill No. of 2005. 2 Published: 1:\Ordinance 05\Rezoning 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue--12-22-05 draft.doc 3 Exhibit "A" Boundary Description A Parcel of land being in the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian and described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Armory 4 Lot Minor Subdivision, said corner being located South 89° 59' 50" West 775.746 feet from the First Veterans Administration monument and said corner is also located North 89° 59' 50" East 10.60 feet from the U.S.A. Monument No. 3 and said corner is also located North 89° 59' 50" East 89.21 feet and North 0° 02' 01" West 58.20 feet from the Salt Lake City Survey Monument in the intersection of Amanda Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue and running thence South 39° 59' 50" West along the North right of way line of Sunnyside Avenue 543.35 feet; thence North 0°00' 10" West 1049.71 feet; thence North 89° 59' 50" East 542.78 feet to the Northwest corner of said Armory 4 Lot Minor Subdivision; thence South 0° 02' 01" East along the West line of said Subdivisions 1049.71 feet to the point O of beginning. Contains 13.087 acres. 2� Exhibit 4ii Newspaper Ad Newspaper Agency Corporation 4770 S. 5600 W. DsIGIrr CUSTOMER'S P.O.BOX 704005 arR1fakaribuur Morning News COPY ' ,JEST VALLEY CITY, UTAH 84170 PROOF OF PUBLICATION FED.TAX I.D.# 87-0217663 PLANNING DIVISION P5356188L-07 11/15/05 451 SOUTH STATE STREET #406 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 i.'.iJi}i}iiii:^ii!;>v?:•:; :•:i::i:'iiii'Y:i+.:i;::_iY.;;-:::i,:'•i;,, .. ........... ...... ....... ommom k� E 0 9rV :... w isV �'�1atS�d Hf PLANNING DIVISION , t i ;;::;,:.>::.;>;;>;::.>;:;:;:,TELEPHONE:::::.:;:.>;»::<.>;:.>;::::::;a::x; :c::•;>s;;;•;;a;::a;:»:•:.�..�.a+1.9r��i..�r.�:::�F.f�::::::::::::::::.�::::::::::::::::. ;,,;�r .,:,��..� rr�,.;e, ..�-_. 7Is 801-535-6188 TL8202WVXF1 ...........................................................:::::::::::::: ... . . . .�.................. .................................................. ..... ..Sit ,.x•,x,:l % r b a 0 iF ',Ij l�l !.%1 i t s i i r e �1du1�1 a � ] ttb� 1 START 111.15105 END 11/15/05 k1 g ts}t•�'kl ' ms4mgmmpNmmunwarimmomma .:.>y:?;:i::; ;Qs:`•fi;.t:igo:,:.::Si;nm:::;,:.:;r:%::::;:>:S;:c:;:iif:5:;:: y,}y - fl e0 4 " rM1 P SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMIS Ct ? �'�,sits_ 'yyiuFS::iiiiEisiki:::'ii:Y2: YS::{:•r.:'isiiS:: 5'S`i``'ii:?y:;:Eis�:`• iri%:3`33?i:` :r `i:: .�o r- .. 44 LINES 1.00 COLUMN 01 � i 7e ,: rvl�e- °er-- ! •..vii:•i}i:4i.iw::::.�:::v::i::::v...: ..:.i:.i?i::ryiii:<•i:^i?iiiiiii:::.:::'i:.ii:::::::..:.:.::::::::[:::::.:ii}iii}ii'r .. Sn. ••o�.. ..•..•r. Y'. • .:.�::.:::.:::::::::::::::::::.�::�`�M'�i�w?`::.::::.�::::::::::::::.�::::::::.:::.�::::::::::::::;.;::::.::::::.:.::._:.:.. ��t;..;.;:::::::;•:::.:::�:::.:r-m::�5:�>::�i�i>::i.>:;. :Gfl�?I,-:;-.,dr.,�. ys��n,,. ,. Yg 'e�Fo � f tiosi sfai s rin,, chl= fell ,yk ,C 53 . 1 1.68 • e22(47 i �Ei�:::isrE:::;.; .:; :::::iyi�•.:.... .:::::%:$;2:-: :YY;':Y:ii i [ iii:':iYta[:fi :Yirii:2: ::::;-x::.:::::•;j;d•;:•:>:x;.p;::::::::::::::::;i::::;t6:; ..<:�J .. :::::::a::::::::.:::.�::::..:::..�::::::::::::::::::::::: ::;:CHG iY_':`:2';EYE ?? ?3iiiii;';?5:':2;':? ;Y ,---.._. .00 78.92 gnIngegMOTMO00$TMENEWMgg 78.92 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY CORPORATION LEGAL BOOKKEEPER, I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED ADVERTISEMENT OF SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMIS FOR PLANNING DIVISION WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY CORPORATION, AGENT FOR THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE AND DESERET NEWS,DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRINTED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL CIRCULATION IN UTAH,AND PUBLISHED IN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF UTAH. PUBLISHED 0 START 11/15/05- END 11/15/05 ) r Notary Public SIGNATURE tib*' �"`.' MEM Z.EARS. +IF *�` 143 Sbeth Main Street - -� � Iitr �I SaltLekeGlty,Uteh8d111 DATE 11/15/05 v ,, 1 a+� My Commission Expves 'kr, .• May 24,2609 t 96• State of Utah .1 THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT BUT A "PROOF OF PUBLICATION" PLEASE PAY FROM BILLING STATEMENT. Exhibit 4iii Minutes Planning Commission November 30, 2005 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, November 30, 2005 Petition No. 400-05-08 and Petition No. 400-05-09— Rowland Hall, St Mark's School requesting to amend the East Bench Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map to designate the property located at approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue as Institutional rather than Open Space and to rezone the property from an Open Space to an Institutional zoning classification. This is a 13-acre portion of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property. At 9:49 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 and recognized Staff, Everett Joyce. Commissioner Muir disclosed a potential conflict of interest with regards to the petition, as his wife is a teacher at the school. His comments will be objective, but he is prepared to disqualify himself if the Commission suggests, as he recognizes the will of the Planning Commission. No problem was found. Mr. Joyce stated the proposed Master Plan amendment and zoning changes are the first steps to a lengthy process. An existing federal reversionary clause enforces the property to be used for cemetery purposes only. Prior to further action of a subdivision application and approval of the parcel itself this clause would need to be removed. Subdivision approval is not presently required because the parcel does not exist. In analysis and findings, Staff reviewed the historical and land use designations for cemeteries within the city. Two key cemetery properties exist in the East Bench Master Plan; Mt. Olivet property and the 1300 South property owned by Sunset Larkin Mortuary. The Master Plan and Future Land Use Map was approved in 1987 indicating both cemeteries as Institutional land use. In 1995, a city-wide zoning ordinance was adopted for Open Space Zoning Districts. The property at Mt. Olivet, prior to the Open Space ordinance was in an R-2 zone. The East Bench Master Plan was amended in 1995 to adopt the Open Space Master Plan policies in conformance with the Zoning Rewrite Project The northwest corner of the Mt. Olivet property is presently zoned RMF-75. This is considered a mapping error and Staff recommends the Planning Commission initiate action to have the property considered as a map amendment in the fine tuning petition. Uses other than a cemetery for Mt. Olivet are allowable, under City Zoning, but deed restrictions are given by the Federal Government on types of Land Use. The Land Use designations in Master Plans identify the City's policy for future land uses. The amendment of the East Bench Master Plan Land Use designation is to include the Mt. Olivet property as Open Space zoning. 1 Planning Commission November 30, 2005 The Land Use policy for the East Bench Master Plan and the Open Space Master Plan are the plans associated with Mt. Olivet. The Salt Lake City Master Plan designates active cemeteries as Open Space and the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the plan. Modification of Open Space zoning boundaries for a portion of the Mt. Olivet cemetery property would set precedence for removal of additional properties with the cemetery not actively used. The unused areas and the portion leased to the East High Football practice field are considered inactive uses of the cemetery. The proposed development is harmonious with the existing character development in the surrounding area. The Institutional zoning classification does allow potential development intensification which would not be harmonious to existing character. The rezoning of Mt. Olivet to Institutional would permit more intensive development than allowed in an Open Space district by potentially increasing traffic levels and impacting adjacent properties. The Transportation Division of Salt Lake City evaluated phase one of the proposed petition. The analysis provided by the applicant concluded that traffic generated by the proposed use would not adversely affect adjacent properties. The East Bench Fault Line and the Primary Aquifer Recharge area overlay do impact the future construction of the area, as trenching would be required for future development. The County Health Department handles the requirements for construction in an aquifer recharge area. The public facilities services and utilities are in place to serve the 13-acre parcel being considered. If actual development occurred, potential problems with water and sewer utilities could occur; if so, the developer would assume responsibility for any changes required. The Staff recommends that the proposed Master Plan amendment and rezoning of the Mt. Olivet property not be recommended for approval, as it is inconsistent with the East Bench Community Master Plan. Rezoning the Open Space for Institutional usage is not consistent with the Open Space zoning district. Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the request. Staff also recommends the Planning Commission initiate a petition to rezone the RMF-75 portion of the Mt. Olivet property in the mapping fine tuning petition. Commissioner Muir requested the inclusion of Community Council interest to the Staff report, but requested the Staff summarize the thoughts of the Community Council in their own words. It was recommended that if an advisory board prepares their own transcripts to attach the information to the Staff report, but not include it within the report itself. Commissioner De Lay questioned the potential of the future property in relation to the guidelines given by the government upon presentation of the property. As a reversionary clause exists, it seems illogical to consider the proposed petition. Mr. Joyce confirmed that a reversionary clause exists for the south portion to revert to the use of a cemetery. The applicant is prepared to address the reversionary clause with the federal government upon approval of this petition by City Council. If the reversionary clause is not removed, the rezoning attempts would be unsuccessful. 2 Planning Commission November 30, 2005 Commissioner Chambless requested confirmation of the lessee regarding the southern parcel of the property, presently converted to a football/soccer field and its future use upon expiration of the lease. Mr. Joyce confirmed the lessee as Salt Lake City School District and clarified the use of the property as educational purposes for the time period of 70 years. Upon expiration of the lease, the property must be reverted back to cemetery status. Commissioner Diamond requested information about Open Space limitations. Mr. Joyce stated that a park is considered Open Space and a community recreation center could be built on Open Space zoned property. Structures can be built on the property, but what prevents the proposed development is the reversionary clause of the federal government. There are limits under the zoning controls. A school would not be allowed in an Open Space zone and must be built in an area zoned Institutional. A recreational center could be built in an Open Space zone. Mr. Joyce confirmed the reversionary clause situation with the property as a negotiated lease between the lessee and the Federal Government. When built upon, the property was in an R-2 zoning district allowing educational uses. Chairperson Noda requested comments from the applicants. Mr. Bill Adams, President of Mt. Olivet Cemetery, provided a short history of the financial status of the association stating the association has been unable to accumulate sufficient funds to provide for perpetual care. There is a 70-year lease with the Salt Lake City School district with a 30-year option to renew, based on congressional approval of that extension. Since the split of the property, Mt. Olivet has explored possibilities to lease other areas but has not received any significant financial opportunities. Mr. Adams requested approval for the rezoning on the property in order to provide continued financial support of the existing cemetery. Mr. Alan Sparrow, Head of Rowland Hall School, presented a history of Rowland Hall St. Mark's, stating demographic and statistical information. Mr. Sparrow continued by citing the mission of Rowland Hall and its students' success as contributing citizens. Although the neighborhood is opposing the change, the community does believe Rowland Hall will be a good neighbor. The relationship with the surrounding schools has been excellent and will continue upon relocation. A soccer field is part of the proposed plan to enhance the green space in the area and to allow public use of the property. Mr. Bob Steiner presented a proposed plan for the property coinciding with the Open Space Master Plan of 1995, including green space, sidewalk, and a widened corridor. The buildings proposed would take up 14% of the subject property. Rowland Hall is presenting a proposal to decrease the financial needs of Mt. Olivet and enhance the community at no cost to the City. In order to ensure a mechanism that would allow the continuance of open space on the property, Mr. Steiner requested assistance from the Planning Commission and the City. Chairperson Noda requested questions for the applicant from the Commissioners. 3 Planning Commission November 30, 2005 Commissioner Diamond requested confirmation about the footprint for the upper school area being placed at the north end of the property. Mr. Steiner confirmed the footprint of the suggested buildings, but also mentioned the possibility of"breaking up" the school into a smaller campus feel. If a campus of ond buildingsr. occurred, e thatnt )d be there lareer because of the lack no plans to build the schoolof common walls. Mr. Steiner now, as the finances still need to be raised. Commissioner De Lay stated her support for private schools in the community and agreed that Rowland Hall needs more space. As commissioners there is a strong support for education within the City. Commissioner Forbis commented on the Open Space description regarding the traditional understating that Open Space includes creeks and canyons. He requested confirmation that the aquifer could also be considered in the definition. Mr. Steiner confirmed the traditional understanding and agreed that the Open Space Master Plan maintained a focus on the unique gifts in the valley area. Mr. Joyce stated that the recharge area covers nearly two-thirds of the City, with the East Bench being the primary recharge area. Ms. Coffey stated that the coverage is continued eastward from Beck Street and is referred to as an underground aquifer recharge area. Commissioner De Lay remarked about Institutional zoning for the area in the East Bench Master Plan. Mr. Joyce confirmed that the zoning in 1987 was R-2, but the term Institutional zoning was from the Land Use policy. The zoning was changed in 1995 with the Open Space Master Plan, including amendments to all Master Plans conflicting with the new zoning ordinance that created a specific Open Space zoning classification. Hearing no further questions for the applicants, Chairperson Noda opened the public hearing requesting comments from the Community Council Chairs. Peter Von Sievers, Capitol Hill Community Council, stated concerns about the potential inconsistencies of the Open Space policies within the City, specifically with the City's position on the North Bench to preserve Open Space and this parcel. Capitol Hill Community Council is opposed to the proposed rezoning. Steve Blackham, Sunnyside Community Council, expressed concern with a potential increase of traffic. The capability of are becoming dele the valued additional traffic is available, but the surrounding neighborhoods Steve Alder, Trustee of Sunnyside East Community Council, stated that the alteration of the zoning is premature and further beplanning considered. Sunnyside Commun nity Indirect Council is effects on Each High School should opposed to the proposed rezoning. 4 Planning Commission November 30, 2005 Dennis Guy-Sell, East Central Community Council, stated that Rowland Hall has been a pleasant neighbor, but the preference of the Board is that they remain at their current location. East Central Community Council is opposed to the proposed rezoning. Marion Florence, Bennion Neighborhood, stated that Rowland Hall has been an enjoyable neighbor, but concerns remain regarding the area left behind. The future of the historic district, future of the current green space and the economic impact of the 900 East and 900 South areas are three main concerns; as the futuristic impact on the land is not protected. A proposal was placed for the property on 900 East and 900 South to be used for expansion and soccer fields if needed. Jim Webster, Yalecrest Community Council, made reference to lone Davis, a charter member of the City Council, who struggled for years to use the suggested property for community use but consistently failed. The vote of this community does not reflect the reputation of Rowland Hall; rather the subject is Open Space. The concept of stewardship is important to consider as it is a role defined as working together instead of domination. Yalecrest Community Council is opposed to the proposed rezoning and map amendment. MaryDelle Gunn, Wasatch Hollow Community Council, stated opposition to the proposed rezoning of Mt. Olivet. Ellen Reddick, Bonneville Hills Community Council; Chair, requested support of Planning Staff recommendation and oppose the proposed rezoning. Seeing no further comments from Community Councils, Chairperson Noda opened the meeting for public comment. Due to the amount of public interest regarding the proposed petition, the general public comments have been summarized. The following individuals spoke in favor of approval of the petition: Carol Frymire, Robert Sanders; Trustee of Rowland Hall, Cary Jones; Rowland Hall Board Member, Guy Kroesche; Trustee of Rowland Hall, Paula Sargetakis; Board Chair of Rowland Hall St. Mark's, Robyn Matheson, Phil Carrol, Leslie Stone, Wayne Adams, Don Biselle, Ryan Hoaglund, Kathy Kennedy, Margaret McGann, Jim Maclntyre, Jordan Kimball, Kevin Bischoff, Robert Tokita, John Ashton, Ken Johnson, Angelina Hyde, Dave & Becky Hall, Kathy Kennedy and Joe Perrin. Those in support of the petition stated the following reasons: • Open Space should be defined as a livable area, rather than a field with trash and a barbed wire fence. • Care of the land would be maintained in a manner to make the City proud, as Rowland Hall has previously proved itself in the Avenues area. • The desire of Rowland Hall for the proposed petition is not to ask for an increase in school population, but rather a request for more space. • An assurance for the land to be maintained as a mechanism for public use will be considered in a deed restriction. 5 Planning Commission November 30, 2005 • Many other options could be considered by the Mt. Olivet Association to sell the property for financial gain, including federal or state government who are exempt from specific zoning requirements; while Rowland Hall is proposing a petition to enhance the City within the guidelines. • Only four of thirteen acres will be used for buildings, lending the remainder to the community. • Open Space is a rhetorical term in Utah; given the many options for a specific definition and should consider the terms of being a usable and livable place for the public. • The present lease on Mt. Olivet has more impervious area than the proposed petition. • Traffic will be decreased as the proposed plan will create a unified school area. Due to the amount of public interest regarding the proposed petition, the public comments have been summarized. The following individuals spoke in favor of denial of the petition: Barbara Cook, Mark Maxfield; East High School Community Council; Chair, Robin Carbaugh, Cindy Cromer, Helen Peters; Former Chair of Mayor's Open Space Committee, Diane Barlow, Father John Norman, Mary Lou Barker, Michael Behrens, and Tim Payne. Those in opposition of the petition stated the following reasons: • Open Space is a natural area of land and should be preserved as a legacy. • Traffic in the area will increase—reducing the safety of the surrounding area. • Mt. Olivet Association has not found enough resources to financially sustain itself, and more time should be allowed for tools to be provided to the association and for the preservation of Open Space. • The value of an area of land for the earth to recharge itself is immeasurable and should be considered a premium space for the community. • Open Space is found less often as city growth continues. • Tools for rating the degree of importance of Open Space are being researched, and given time, will be considered as possible trading options. • The land is irreplaceable. Public Comment read into the record: Gleed Toombes; The schools proposed development can be accomplished by other means. If Mt. Olivet really needs some money to handle management of the cemetery they should coordinate with the City and work out a plan with them. The property was designated to be preserved as a cemetery and nothing else. Once is it sold, regardless of immediate plans, it become a part of the commercial free enterprise system. Its future is unknown. Not what our country fathers had in mind. Jonathan Hermance: My wife and I own a rental property across Sunnyside from the field RHSM has interest in. We feel RHSM is potentially a good neighbor and are certainly better than a shopping mall or other commercial use. They are Institutional and have shown they are responsible in the use of the lands they currently occupy. The 6 Planning Commission November 30, 2005 soccer fields proposed are practical if they are available to local leagues. Developed open space would be more to my liking, but it seems Mt. Olivet needs money and will get it from somewhere. Better RHSM than a U of U parking lot or whatever. Jan Bennet: We strongly encourage Mt. Olivet cemetery to retain the open space that currently enhances our neighborhood. We believe the additional buildings and traffic would have a negative impact on the entire surrounding area. Steve Belson (Beckham): My wife Jane and I are opposed to the rezoning proposal. Alice Andersen: Living as I do immediately opposite the land in question, I am greatly opposed to this rezoning. Robin Puri: Support the sell of the property to the school. Financial needs of Mt. Olivet will be met, open space will be maintained with the school only using 4 of the 13 acres. Steve Mason: Keep this open space, uphold the master plan. We need cemetery and open space; we need the deer and other small animals. Please keep it open. Susan Koles: Responsible planning would allow RHSM to rezone a piece of the property that is inaccessible/unsightly/unsafe and use a portion for construction and a portion for green space. Leslie Stone: I am strongly in favor of Rowland Hall, St. Mark's Proposal. Peggy McDonough's comments read into the record: Despite my respect for the school and its mission, from my analysis of the Staff report and familiarity with the area, I concur with Staff to forward a negative recommendation to City Council. It is a very dangerous precedent to establish, placing our city's open space areas at risk for the convenience of development. The Planning Commission had received several written comments. Chairperson Noda entered the written comments into the record. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Noda closed the public hearing and went into executive order with the Commission. Commissioner Scott noted the number of citizens who stayed late to state their desire and thanked them. She stated that spending time in cemeteries can allow the children of society to learn about responsibility and the irreplaceability of open space. Commissioner De Lay noted the passion of the individuals who remained for the conclusion of the meeting. Rowland Hall is a good neighbor, and would be a good steward of the land, but the fact remains that the property be reverted to the federal government if it is not used as a cemetery. Commissioner Muir requested further tools to assess the area of Open Space. Given the topic of cemeteries, the Planning Commission has opposed and defended them. The Community Council Chairs have alluded to the difficult position Commissioners are placed in with regards to Open Space. Without tools to determine the net loss of Open Space by supporting the petition, the City is at a loss. A suggestion for Rowland Hall to 7 Planning Commission November 30, 2005 locate four acres of valuable Open Space, purchase it, and trade it to the City for the removal of the Mt. Olivet four acres is not feasible under the existing requirements. A trade option is not presently available to the City, but should be considered by the Open Space committee as a potentially feasible. Commissioner Diamond confirmed the lack of zoning requirements by the federal and state government. He requested to know how much land was currently being used by Rowland Hall for the school for the purpose to determine if a land trade for the potential of Open Space could possibly be agreed upon. Mr. Steiner stated that less than half of the footprint is used. Mr. Ikefuna discussed the studies the City is doing regarding the inventory of critical lands and preservation easements and stated that upon conclusion of the studies, the lands will be classified and the criteria for protection will be assessed and developed. Staff is also evaluating the bylaws of the Open Space & Lands Advisory Board to determine if it can be amended to include some provisions which have been mentioned. The topic will be brought up in further discussion. Commissioner Muir suggested tabling the petition to allow the City some time to assess the options available to the applicant and the City. Chairperson Noda agreed with Commissioner Muir in the sense of unavailable tools for dealing with Open Space and requested tabling the petition in order to provide the applicant with more time to research further options. The consistency of identifying the importance of Open Space has been provided by decisions made by the Planning Commission. Open Space is valued by the City and should not be altered. The amount of Open Space within the City is small and if more is given away for development the less of a legacy we have for the future. Commissioner Chambless noted the lack of Open Space in large, high density cities and recommended the Open Space be left, as it is irreplaceable. Commissioner Muir clarified the rezoning in North Salt Lake as a rezone from an Open Space to a Natural Open Space zone, precluding the opportunity for a cemetery. To remain consistent, this space would also be rezoned as a Natural Open Space. Mr. Steiner stated that in the North Salt Lake situation there were different circumstances under which the decision was made. Having a large institution nearby or possible federal buyers, the likelihood of the disappearance of open space is greater. Tabling the petition would be an option for the applicants, in order to determine if further alternatives are available. Discussion of tabling the petition and returning to the Planning Commission with the City Attorney led to a motion to table. Motion for Petition #400-05-08 & 400-05-09 Commissioner De Lay moved that the Planning Commission table Petition 400-05- 08 & 400-05-09 in order to request the attendance of the City Attorney to a meeting. No second. 8 Planning Commission November 30, 2005 Commissioner Scott disagreed with the idea to table and requested the commissioners determine the purpose of Open Space. As a Planning Commission, a strong statement should be made regarding the importance of Open Space. Public Utilities should consider cemetery space. Commissioner De Lay removed the motion for tabling the petition. Motion for Petition#400-05-08 & 400-05-09 Based on the findings of fact, Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the requests to amend the East Bench Master Plan and the request to rezone the 13 acre portion of Mt. Olivet Cemetery property from Open Space to Institutional Land Use and zoning classifications. Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. Commissioner Scott, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Forbis, Commissioner Diamond, and Commissioner Chambless voted "Aye". Commissioner Muir was opposed. Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Seelig and Commissioner Galli were not present. As Chair, Chairperson Noda did not vote. The motion passed. Exhibit 4iv Staff Report DATE: November 21, 2005 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Everett L. Joyce, AICP RE: STAFF REPORT FOR THE NOVEMBER 30, 2005 MEETING CASES#: 400-05-08 Master Plan Amendment 400-05-09 Zoning Amendment APPLICANT: Rowland Hall - St. Mark's School STATUS OF APPLICANT: The applicant has entered into contract with Mount Olivet Cemetery Association to purchase the Mt. Olivet property on the condition that the master plan and the zoning are amended as requested. PROJECT LOCATION: 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: 13.087 acres COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 6, Councilmember Buhler REQUESTED ACTION: Amend the East Bench Master Plan Future Land Use Plan from Open Space to Institutional land use and rezone the subject property Institutional rather than Open Space. PROPOSED USE(S): Future development of a private middle and upper school with a proposed soccer field and open space area. The soccer field and open space area would consist of approximately two thirds or 8.5 acres of the subject 13 acre parcel. SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS: North Open Space South R-1/5000 Single Family Residential East Institutional West Open Space/Institutional Planning Commission Staff Report Mt.Olivet Cemetery Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 1 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment SURROUNDING LAND USES: North Mt. Olivet Cemetery South Single family residences West Mt. Olivet Cemetery/ East High football field (lease) East McCarthey Lower/Beginning School campus and Pingree private school campus APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. Utah Code 10-9a-404 General Plan amendment MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: East Bench Community Master Plan as amended through the 1995 Citywide Zoning Rewrite Project designates the subject property for open space use. The Open Space Master Plan depicts the Trans-valley Open Space Corridor along the subject property adjacent to Sunnyside Avenue. ACCESS: The subject property fronts on Sunnyside Avenue and if developed as proposed, would have access from Sunnyside Avenue and from Guardsman Way through the related adjacent property. Immediately east of the subject school site is the Rowland Hall St. Mark's, McCarthey Lower/Beginning School campus. PROJECT DISCRIPTION: Applicant is requesting master plan amendment and zoning classification amendment to accommodate the development of a future middle and upper school for Rowland Hall St. Marks. The existing site is undeveloped. The conceptual land use plans submitted with the petition applications show the school uses; a soccer field and an improved open space area. The applicant proposes to develop a soccer field and open space area on the southern two-thirds of the 13-acre parcel. The northern one-third of the property, approximately four acres, would be used for school buildings and parking areas. (See Exhibit 4 Conceptual Development Plan and Existing Site Conditions) Mt.Olivet Cemetery Planning Commission Staff Report no*;*;.,nQ ann-05-08 and 400-05-09 2 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment !__ i a l—��•3 II .: I IT '0 , "J • - �'.t. IIf T ':�•"� 1`4;Tf RMF-75 ,. g A; 1, -� 'L •Ir.. 2 . ♦ 1 113 r m. 3."`"- i I i 0. xC �...va. ,'ill l' .'y �._.. i f t[ i `` pp 4 Y L x. �� gip,._R-2" -_ ' _ ,�I. a'�Ap, ' 7� .. J'"", OS II i r:. .,. 2MF-35 - ! ,. , . 4 Y , ��'RMF-30�I �I� 1 SubJ�t . ,� q2 '� j., f ���� • Propert�r- .—� I. , r --,------------it if ,1 ! `i g 1 _-''.1 .,. 1 `� �7 I. Pl r•''i@- 4. .rY.."irdk',,i;"1:.,4.4 iifrij -,i r` msn A. 1 1(.• 1.' 1 tl'R1 '�. _fit_ , , t a .RMF 35 l:! 1R-15000 .' 4, , _ ' °.;,sue -r y r.F > 6 e el... a - 3 i=a _s � .T i L� i 7: 1 a ti ' t 1 . ..� -�!�#;r .�� :� ��-.--�'I .ib .ip'r� / L-.'+e�.!.s ��ia�d� f elY ii •r� Vicinity Map COMMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: COMMENTS City Department Comments. Transportation -The Transportation Division reviewed the petition proposal and recommended approval based on the following. The proposed site fronts on Sunnyside Avenue, an arterial class roadway with five lanes. There is also a proposed access to Guardsman Way, an arterial class roadway with four lanes. The traffic study provided in Exhibit"H" of the petitioner's application is a phase 1 preliminary study. The study indicates a reasonable traffic review for the present data available and the indication of approximately 400 additional trips generated. Planning Commission Staff Report Mt. Olivet Cemetery Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 3 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment Public Utilities -The Public Utilities Department stated they have no issues with this proposed request for zoning and plan amendment. However, construction of the proposed uses raises several issues. For culinary and fire flow needs this property would be served by a six-inch water main in Sunnyside Avenue. Water system improvements may be necessary if this existing main cannot meet the State and City's Fire Department fire flow requirements. A storm drain runs along the north side of this property. A minimum 30-foot easement will be required for the operation and maintenance of this facility. All future design and construction must conform to State, County, City and Public Utilities standards and ordinances and Salt Lake City Public Utilities General Notes. Fire Department—The Fire Department has no objection to the above named zoning change request. Site plan approval for development(fire hydrant number and location, fire access roads) will require review and approval by the Fire Department prior to building permit issuance. Police Department—The Police Department identified the following concerns: 1. Traffic - Increased traffic in the area of 800 South and 1300 East during school year. While the expected increase is not dramatic in numbers the combination of East High, University of Utah and Rowland Hall all occurring at the same time could increase needs of enforcement, accidents, etc. A possible mitigation alternative would be adjustment of Rowland Hall or East High operation hours to spread out the traffic concerns. 2. Proximity- The proximity of the proposed location to East High, especially where middle school aged students and high school aged students would mix, could potentially increase the risk of negative contacts. 3. Neighborhood impact - The impact would be mostly to residential areas located south of Sunnyside Avenue. This would be due to the substantial increase in the high school aged group traffic, mostly during lunchtime and after school hours. Question- Would Rowland Hall be an open or closed campus? i.e. If students were restricted to campus during lunchtime then impact to surrounding neighborhood should only be after school hours. East is presently an open campus during lunchtime. 4. Resource officer- With only one resource officer assigned to East High any additional law enforcement needs would be from a normally assigned patrol officer. In this type of environment, we have found that prevention at the earliest level and the ability to speak with students prior to any potential negative action usually prevents the negative action from occurring. Note: There has not been any significant negative interaction between East High and Rowland Hall students in the past or presently. (East High School is located at 800 South 1300 East and Rowland Hall is located at 950 East 800 South) Building and Permits Department—The Permits Department had no comments regarding the petition request. Planning Commission Staff Report Mt. Olivet Cemetery patifinnc ann_ns-n5 and 400-05-09 4 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment Public Services—The Public Services Department has identified the following information regarding cemeteries within Salt Lake City. Development of the Salt Lake City Cemetery started in 1847. The cemetery is approximately 250 acres in size and plotted for 140,823 graves. The entire cemetery space is plotted out and developed. There is no additional space for expansion. To date, approximately 119,000 plots are used. Of the 21,800 remaining, 17,300 have been pre-sold. Only 4,500 burial sites remain for sale. Historically, on an annual basis approximately 600 burials occur each year. If the historical numbers hold, use of all available cemetery sites will occur within 36 years. The historical cemetery sales rate is 350 graves sites each year. Based on the 4,500 available burial sites for sale and historical sale rates, in 13 years there will be no sites available. The present day data suggests that the cemetery will use up its available burial space in 13 years. Within another 23 years, all burial sites will be filled. Beyond that point in time, the city will continue to fulfill its obligation to care for and maintain the cemetery in perpetuity without the offsetting annual revenue generated by property sales and burials. Presently the City has no plans to either expand the cemetery space (the only potential expansion would be into Lindsay Gardens Park) or start a second cemetery in a new location in the City. Any decision to move in this direction would result from a policy discussion and agreement between the Mayor and City Council. If the City fills the cemetery without further expansion or new development, other public or private cemeteries will need to fill the public demand. Salt Lake City has one public cemetery, the Salt Lake City Cemetery. Four(4) additional active cemeteries are located within the boundaries of the City: Mt. Olivet, a private cemetery owned by a consortium of local churches; Mt. Calvary, a private cemetery owned by the Catholic Diocese; B'nai Israel Cemetery, a private cemetery owned by the Temple Kol Ami Synagogue; and Larkin Sunset Lawn, a private cemetery owned by the Larkin family. It is my understanding that the public has access to each of these cemeteries regardless of affiliation except B'nai. I also understand that with the exception of Mt. Olivet and Larkin cemeteries, the others face the same capacity challenges as the City's cemetery. Though the City has a municipal cemetery that it must maintain and operate in perpetuity, the City has no legal obligation to maintain an"active" cemetery. The following actions may extend the Cemetery's "active"period: 1. The historical consumption numbers may change over time; 2. Resale burial plots that have been sold,but have not been used in a 60 year period (this could add a few hundred graves to the inventory over time); 3. Develop double deep burials, which means that one burial plot may be used for two burials; and 4. The construction of mausoleums, which allow burials to occur above ground in structures. Planning Commission Staff Report Mt.Olivet Cemetery Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 5 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment Open Space Advisory Committee and Board Comments. Mayor's Open Space Advisory Committee—The Mayor's Open Space Committee in June of 2003, received a historical review of land transactions related to Mount Olivet Cemetery and the potential sale of the subject property by the Cemetery Association to Rowland Hall St. Marks for future institutional development. The Open Space Committee discussed then passed a motion to protect this property as open space. The Committee identified that the current and future use of this property is of great significance to Salt Lake City's long-term interest in preserving and protecting limited open space. (Committee letter in Exhibit 5) Open Space Lands Advisory Board—Under the provisions of Chapter 2.88 of the Salt Lake City Code, the Open Space Lands Board is charged with devising a plan"for the preservation, protection, management and consideration for acquisition of Open Space Lands" in Salt Lake City. The Open Space Lands Advisory Board reviewed and discussed the subject petitions to amend the Open Space land use designation of the East Bench Master Plan and the Open Space zoning designation for the subject Mt. Olivet property. The Board's recommendation on the petition is based on the belief that rezoning currently zoned open space in Salt Lake City is inadvisable. Accordingly, the Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Advisory Board voted unanimously to recommend against the requested rezoning of the Mt. Olivet property from Open Space to Institutional. (Board letter in Exhibit 5) Community Council Comments Yalecrest Neighborhood Council The Yalecrest Neighborhood Council opposes the proposed master plan and zone change. Throughout council's entire history,the open space between the armory property(currently occupied by the Carmen Pingree Autism School) and 1300 East has been one of our primary concerns. We advocated interim use of the property for soccer fields along with Ione Davis,one of the original City Council members. We supported Mr. Hogle's proposal for an interim golf academy, and although we had some concerns regarding visual and noise impacts,we have supported the interim use of the property for East's football/track facility. On the other hand, we have consistently opposed proposals that contradict the original intent of the federal designation as open space,including those of the University of Utah and the more recent proposal by Rowland Hall St Mark's (RHSM). Institutional use is absolutely excluded by the Depattiuent of Defense's 1874 land allocation to Mt Olivet. The DOD agreement is consistent with Salt Lake City's current zoning ordinance. The residents of Yalecrest Neighborhood Council are opposed to a change in the open space zone. The following is a synopsis of the specific concerns expressed in Yalecrest meetings as regards the proposal to change the zoning for the Mt Olivet property to serve the needs of Rowland Hall St Marks' Schools: There is no compelling need to consider any change to the original intent of DOD designation for this property for future cemetery expansion. To oppose the intent of original designation would not only demonstrate ingratitude for Federal co-operation in 1874,but also damage SLC's future ability to obtain federal open space lands for viable community purposes. The Yalecrest Planning Commission Staff Report Mt. Olivet Cemetery Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 6 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment community fully accepts the need for cemetery use, the wisdom of the proponents of the 1874 agreement, and fully endorses the perpetual use of the property as designated. There is no compelling need to attempt by whatever political means as may be available to eradicate the reversionary clause in this agreement. If Mt Olivet cannot find a way to honor the original agreement to provide appropriate stewardship for the property, then other uses that are compatible with the 1874 agreement must be explored. Yalecrest neighbors have attended meetings sponsored by RHSM and have carefully reviewed preliminary site plans for the middle and high schools on the 13 acres in question. Recognized area standards for middle and high schools have been established by land planners as represented by the following sources: Koppleman and DeChiara, Planning Design Criteria,Van Nostrand Reinhold,N.Y., 1969: Jr. High School: 18-20 acres; Table 9-4, pg 182 High School: 32-34 acres; Table 9-5, pg 183 The Urban Land Institute, The Community Builders Handbook,ULI, Wash. D.C., 1968: Jr. High School: 20 acres; pg 161 High School: 40 acres; pg 161 Using these minimal standards from either source,RHSM would need 50 acres for both institutions; the maximum standard would require 60 acres,an increase of about 462%over the land being made available by Mt Olivet. Based on the information presented by RHSM, the interior area of the proposed buildings is over 170% greater than the University of Utah's football practice facility. Opportunity costs include not only the loss of open space,but also loss of wildlife habitat, tranquility, aquifer recharge, oxygen generation, temperature mitigation, and associated benefits provided to the urban environment by open space. We wonder if impacts on the sanitary sewer infrastructure have been adequately addressed. Is available line capacity sufficient for such an intensive development? We have studied RHSM's traffic impact study and feel it is inordinately biased and must be balanced by a second opinion. This study failed to address the issue of double-parking, an ongoing impact that would only become even more intolerable if the zone were changed. Problems and impacts generated by RHSM have been the continual source of discussions in our Yalecrest meetings. These include an unfortunate track record of traffic infractions such as double parking, a serious safety impact. When RHSM parents pick up students, Guardsman Way is virtually grid-locked. There has been much discussion in our meetings that the Open Space zone could become merely a"holding pattern" until yet another more powerful lobby comes along to subvert the best interests of our community and the associated master planning process. This would be a terrible precedent. The placement of three high schools (East, Rowland Hall and Judge) in close proximity is unprecedented, and in our opinion for appropriate reasons. We do not question that a rise in crime rate will occur as three competing student bodies are so closely mingled. We have Planning Commission Staff Report Mt. Olivet Cemetery Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 7 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment discussed this issue with J.R. Smith of the Salt Lake City Police Department who alerted us that such an increase in crime would be unavoidable. The Planning Commission should require a detailed study of comparable circumstances as related to the incidence of crime,if anyone can find a precedent for three high schools with a half-mile radius. RHSM has implied that there is some sort of"efficiency" associated with having all students of any given family on a common complex. We believe this to be fallacious. Negative impacts of vacating the Roosevelt campus include blight, commercial land speculation, adverse land uses imposed on adjacent residential neighborhood due to an institutional zone status of being higher on pyramid than residential,thus limiting a potential for down-zone due to market value considerations. Yalecrest residents believe that the city must generate small area master plans for both the Roosevelt and Guardsman parcels. This must occur prior to any further consideration of re- zone. We believe any action at this point would be premature and ill advised. If this land is used for an alternate purpose, completely alien to original intent of the DOD designation, within a very few years Salt Lake City will become the only major city in the western US without a public cemetery. How does this serve to define sustainability? Perpetuation of the cemetery use is economically viable. Mt Olivet will gain more from the long-term development of the land in question as a cemetery than the offered price from RHSM,if it is properly managed. This point has been raised in numerous meetings by Mr. Russon and others familiar with the cemetery and real estate industries. There is no economic hardship, implied or real. The Yalecrest Neighborhood Council appreciates the responsibility that the Planning Commission has in sustaining the integrity of our neighborhoods. For the reasons outlined above, and for reasons that are being expressed in the public hearing forum, the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council opposes the proposed zone change. East Central Community Council At the May 18, 2005 meeting of the East Central Community Council Executive Committee issues related to the Mt. Olivet Cemetery and the Open Space Zone were discussed. By unanimous vote, the Committee passed the following motion: To strongly recommend, that the City protect and preserve the current open space zone of the southeast section of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery. That the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and the City Council reject the petition by Rowland Hall St. Marks to amend the Master Plan for a rezone to institutional zoning if the southeast portion of land that is currently Mt. Olivet Cemetery. The following points led to this motion: 1. The absolute irreplaceability of this open space land which is Mt. Olivet Cemetery to the densely developed central and eastern area of Salt Lake City. Planning Commission Staff Report Mt.Olivet Cemetery ��:,...., itnn (IS OR anti 400-0S-09 8 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment 2. The critical need regarding the planning for cemetery space in Salt Lake City for future generations. 3. The historical value of its original use as enacted by the United States Congress. 4. The ecological value of its natural state in regards to wildlife. 5. The livability value for a community that is overly impacted by institutional development. 6. The need for Salt Lake City to protect different types of open spaces 7. The important planning value of the Open Space Zone to stop the threat of institutional and other development interests from encroaching on zoned open space land. Bonneville Hills Community Council The Bonneville Hills Community Council's Executive Board recommended preserving and protecting the OS Open Space Zone and rejecting the petition to amend the East Bench Community Master Plan and zone change for Institutional uses on the Mt. Olivet property. Wasatch Hollow Community Council The Wasatch Hollow Community Council passed a motion by acclamation to support denial of the rezone to institutional zoning request, by Rowland Hall St. Mark's School, of the southeast portion of land that is currently Mt. Olivet cemetery. There is a critical need regarding planning for cemetery space. As the Salt Lake City Cemetery nears capacity, the city will need this land for its intended purpose as a public use cemetery. Of equal importance, the implications of changing an open space zone to an institutional zone are profound. If this change to the ordinance is allowed, then open space throughout the city will be vulnerable to rezoning pressures. Other Public Comments The Planning Division received numerous letters and e-mails commenting on the proposed master plan and rezoning amendment petitions. Public input responses,both in support and opposition to the proposal are included in Exhibit 6—Community Input, separated into two groups, those that support and those that oppose amendment of the master plan and rezoning of the property from open space to institutional classification. Petitioner Letter Regarding Yalecrest Community Council Meeting A representative of the applicant has submitted a letter to the Planning Commission(Exhibit 7) stating concern regarding the Yalecrest Community Council vote and meeting procedures at their August 23, 2005 meeting. Community Council votes are not binding on the decisions made by the Planning Commission. The Planning Division understands that the Community Council discussion is the opinion of a neighborhood group and not the entire community. Planning Commission Staff Report Mt. Olivet Cemetery Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 9 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Historical Zoning and Land Use Designations for Cemeteries Within Salt Lake City, there are five active cemeteries. Three cemeteries are in the Avenues Community and two in the East Bench Community. The 1987 Avenues Community Master Plan identified the City Cemetery, Mount Calvary Catholic Cemetery and Salt Lake Memorial Cemetery on the Future Land Use Plan as Parks and Open Space. The original, 1987 East Bench Master Plan identified the Mt. Olivet Cemetery and Sunset Lawn Memorial Cemetery on the Future Land Use Plan as Institutional. The amended East Bench Master Plan designates the Future Land Use policy for the Mt. Olivet and Sunset Lawn cemeteries as Open Space. A third cemetery is located in the East Bench Community, the Fort Douglas Cemetery. This is a closed cemetery. East Bench Master Plan Future Land Use Plan. In 1995, adoption of the Citywide zoning classifications effectively amended the East Bench Master Plan Future Land Use Plan from Institutional to Open Space for the Mt. Olivet Cemetery and Sunset Lawn Memorial properties. The cemetery properties within the Avenues Community were also zoned OS Open Space with Citywide rezoning in 1995. Open Space Master Plan. The Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan is not a land use plan. The Open Space Master Plan is a policy document that strengthens the open space land use designations of adopted Community,Neighborhood, and Specific Master Plans. The Open Space Plan goals are: ■ Conserve the natural environment • Enhance open space amenities for all citizens • Connect the various parts of the City to natural environments and • Educate the citizens on proper use of open space. Mt. Olivet Property Court Challenge. Mt Olivet Cemetery Association and Johnson Land Enterprises, LLC initiated declaratory and injunctive relief action on March 4, 1996, contending the property was federally owned and governed by federal regulations. Plaintiff sought a declaration that(1) the City exceeded its authority by attempting to regulate federal property and (2) the City's zoning ordinances, as applied to Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association, were preempted by federal law and thus unconstitutional under the Supremacy clause. The City argued the Association owned the property and that the zoning ordinance was consistent with Utah law and any applicable federal regulation. In granting summary judgment in favor of the City, the court held the Association owned the property by virtue of the 1909 Act deeding the property to the Association, and at the best the United States held a possibility of reverter. (See Exhibit 8: Congressional Land Grants and Tenth Circuit Court Summary) Existing Zoning. In 1995, adoption of the Citywide Zoning Rewrite Project created the Open Space zoning classification and placed most of the cemetery properties in an OS - Open Space zoning designation. The exceptions were the Ft. Douglas Cemetery, which was rezoned RP - Research Park and a narrow one-half acre parcel at the west edge of Mt. Olivet Cemetery, which was zoned RMF-75. The Ft Douglas Cemetery is not an active public cemetery and is owned by the University of Utah and located within the University Research Park complex. Planning Commission Staff Report Mt. Olivet Cemetery Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 10 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment The Open Space zoning designation permits I 7.s ! I cemetery uses. Both the Research Park and RMF-75 zoning districts do not permit 1 i ' ,!,,, . —Il cemeteries. The RMF-75 zoning on the 1,± 1 k1)• ( I r western portion of the Mt. Olivet property is �. `- • ' ra ,u . not consistent with overall zoning of Mt. Olivet ''41;°:r and standards for - -, t ,, Cemetery. The criteria l zoning classification actions within the 1995, �'' �• `: , L a -p L A, )ur+t`` _ " f u,e Citywide Zoning Rewrite Project would have �_ „� � _ i L� placed the entire cemetery operational area and "7. ,ate ' property within the Open Space Zoning + , - '` District. Staff believes that the RMF-75 zoning i.," t_, on parcel 16-04-351-007 of the Mt. Olivet {, r ^� property was likely a mapping error. Staff • }, recommends that the Planning Commission tom. initiate action to have the RMF-75 zoned ' r# L a� portion of the Mt. Olivet property considered °' a'I f l ` t, for a map amendment as part of a Planning �I' k••.ia' Division's Zoning Map fine-tuning petition. s iitt,i , , ' MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT—Petition 400-05-08 The general land use Master Plan policy and guidelines for the Mt. Olivet property are included within the East Bench Community Master Plan. The Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan relates to the subject property in that the plan supports conservation of open space and identifies a concept to connect the various opens space areas within the City through a trail system. Discussion: The East Bench Community Master Plan land use policy designates the Mt. Olivet property as Open Space. The published 1987 East Bench Maser Plan depicts the subject property as Institutional land use. However, adoption of the 1995 citywide Zoning Rewrite project amended the East Bench Community Master Plan designating the subject property for Open Space uses and zoned the property OS —Open Space. (Ordinance 26 of 1995) Petition Application This section of the staff report highlights key statements provided in the petitioner's application. The entire application and the petitioner's additional information responding to the criteria standards for zoning changes are included in Exhibits 1-3 of this staff report. Planning Commission Staff Report Mt. Olivet Cemetery vo,;,;,,,,.ann_m_nR anti 400-05-09 11 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment The Mount Olivet Cemetery Association and the Roland Hall—St. Mark's School believe the circumstances with regards to the Mt. Olivet property support release of a federal government reversionary interest in the property and amendment of the East Bench Master Plan for Institutional uses and the rezoning of the property to Institutional zoning designation. Rowland Hall—St. Mark's will pursue the removal of the reversionary clause that reverts the property back to the federal government if it is no longer used for cemetery purposes. However, in advance of securing the removal of the reversionary interest, the Mt. Olivet property needs to be re-zoned "institutional"from "open space". Absent of such change, the federal government will not consider any removal of the reversionary clause. The specific circumstances are that the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association must sell a portion of the Mt. Olivet property in order to have sufficient funds to repair and maintain the remaining cemetery property. The application states that the Association has enough land, excluding property leased to the Salt Lake City School District (football field immediately to the west), to provide burial space for another ninety (90)years. The Association cannot make needed capital improvements and perpetually maintain the cemetery, without the proceeds from the sale of the 13 acres of Mt. Olivet property. Staff Analysis Salt Lake City land use policies and existing zoning classification do not prohibit the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association from leasing or selling their property. The Association may sell or lease property for uses within the guidelines of permitted uses of the Open Space Zoning District. The Open Space Zoning District peiiuits cemeteries and accessory crematoriums, community and recreation centers, country clubs, golf courses,private recreational facilities and zoological parks. The Salt Lake City Master Plan land use policies allow for various land uses of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association property. The Open Space Zoning District restrictions permit a variety of land uses and do not force Mt. Olivet to leave the property economically idle as undeveloped land. Findings: Land use designations in master plans identify the City's policy for future land uses. Developed properties that do not conform to the master plan objectives and existing zoning are nonconforming. Properties that lie in an undeveloped state do not conflict with the Future Land Use Plans. The amended East Bench Community Master Plan land use designation for the Mt. Olivet property is for open space uses. Operational financing difficulties could be alleviated by lease or sale of property to land uses that are consistent with the East Bench Master Plan Future Land Use designation and existing Open Space Zoning classification. Notice Requirement. A notice for the Master Plan amendment was published in the Salt Lake City Tribune and Deseret News on November 15, 2005 meeting State Law requirements for Master Plan amendments. Planning Commission Staff Report Mt.Olivet Cemetery n . nnn nc nQ arA ann_n5_nc 12 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment ZONING AMENDMENT—Petition 400-05-09 Section 21A.50.050 Standards for General Amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: Most master plans do not contain specific land use policy regarding cemeteries. The City's Master Plans address open space and institutional land uses. The following master plan policies relate to the open space zoning map amendment proposed. The Avenues Community Master Plan identifies existing cemeteries as an open space land use. The East Bench Community Master Plan as amended through the 1995 Citywide Zoning Rewrite Project identified existing active cemeteries as open space land use. Prior to 1995, the East Bench Community Master Plan identified the active cemeteries as Institutional land uses. The Fort Douglas Cemetery land use designation is Institutional. The Fort Douglas Cemetery is a closed cemetery and is a nonconforming use in the Research Park zone. Two specific master plan documents address the land use policy related to the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property. These plans are the East Bench Community Master Plan and the Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan. East Bench Community Master Plan The East Bench Master Plan of April 1987 designated the Mount Olivet Cemetery property for Institutional land use. The East Bench Master Plan also designated Sunset Lawns Memorial Cemetery located at 2352 East 1300 South Street for Institutional uses. In 1995, the Citywide Zoning Rewrite Project amended the land use designation of both these properties from Institutional to Open Space. Salt Lake City Master Plan policy designates both active cemeteries within the East Bench Community as Open Space. (The Institutional Zoning District does not include cemeteries in the table of permitted and conditional uses. The Open Space zoning district permits cemetery land uses.) Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan The 1992 Salt Lake City Open Space Plan defined a comprehensive corridor approach to connecting the City's open space resources to provide a safe, enjoyable experience of the natural features of Salt Lake City. The Open Space Master Plan defines policy for connecting open space amenities and does not provide land use policy. The land use policy of open space for the Mt. Olivet property is defined in the amended East Bench Master Plan. Staff Analysis The proposed development of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property by Rowland Hall St. Marks indicates an end use with significant open space amenities. However, cemetery uses are an appropriate open space land use. One key factor that limits the potential development of this open space is the presence of the private restrictive covenants on the Planning Commission Staff Report Mt. Olivet Cemetery Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 13 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment property. The use restrictions set by the federal government ensure future cemetery uses and public accessibility. The existing land use policy, zoning classification and the restrictive covenant encourages future open space use of the property. The proposed concept plan by Rowland Hall St. Marks would convert approximately 4.5 acres of open space designated land to institutional use while the other 8.5 acres would be open space type uses. The Yalecrest Community Council identified that school land area standards exceed the area proposed for use by Rowland Hall St. Marks. Staff recognizes that private middle and upper schools do not require as much land area as a public school. Private schools serve specific portion of the population while public schools serve the entire community. Even though, land area demand may not be as great as a public school, enrollment levels can increase the institutional land area need. However, Institutional zoning would not ensure continuation of open space uses in the future. Rowland Hall St Mark's School has not identified any mechanism to ensure the continuance of open space and the assurance of public use of the open space and the proposed soccer field. If the property was zoned Institutional,placement of restrictive covenants to ensure that the developed open space uses are kept and public access maintained would strengthen the case of maintaining the open space uses and rezoning the land to an Institutional zoning district. 1992 congressional action to permit 70-year lease for recreational uses. Salt Lake City supported congressional legislative action in 1992 that allowed Mt. Olivet Cemetery's unused property to be used for non-cemetery uses for 70 years. The City has always acknowledged the existing and future cemetery use as being consistent with the City's increasing need to protect open space. Because all discussions centered on the use of this property for public or private recreational uses, the City embraced the proposed legislation to permit the 70-year lease to the Salt Lake City School District for the East High athletic field. This action was at the request for both the City and the residents because it would protect the"open space" and give Mount Olivet a revenue stream. The master plan policies and zoning in place at the time the Salt Lake City School District signed the lease agreement permitted educational facilities. Findings: Land use designations in the adopted master plans identify the City's policy for future land uses. Properties that do not conform to the master plan objectives are either, developed with a nonconforming use or undeveloped. Undeveloped properties do not conflict with the Future Land Use Plan. A zoning amendment to an Institutional zoning classification does not ensure continued open space use of the property. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Modification of the Open Space zoning boundaries for a portion of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property would set precedent for removal of additional properties within the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association boundaries not actively used for burial purposes from the Open Space designation. Planning Commission Staff Report Mt.Olivet Cemetery Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 14 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The overall character of the area contains a variety of land uses ranging from single family residential uses to Institutional land uses. Immediately east of the subject parcel are two private schools. One, the Rowland Hall—St. Mark's, McCarthey Lower/Beginning School campus,which is to be incorporated with the proposed future development of the middle and upper school facilities that will complement the existing facility. The other existing school immediately east of the subject property is the Pingree School for the deaf located on the northwest corner of Guardsman Way and Sunnyside Avenue. Immediately to the west is the East High School football field. This field is on a portion of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property. In 1992, Congress approved a 70-year lease to permit Salt Lake City School District to use this property subject to future reversion back to cemetery use. Single family residential uses are located south across Sunnyside Avenue and the cemetery use is to the north. OS and Institutional Zoning District Characteristics Comparison. The purpose of the Open Space Zoning District is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas. The purpose of the Institutional Zoning District is to regulate the development of larger public and semi-public uses in a manner harmonious with surrounding uses. The existing Open Space Zoning District permits a variety of land uses including cemeteries and their related structures. The Open Space and Institutional Zoning districts require similar set backs. Permitted building heights allowed are similar however; the Institutional zone allows 75-foot high structures as a conditional use. Findings: The proposed development plan presented by Rowland Hall St. Marks is harmonious with the overall character of existing development. However, the Institutional zoning classification allows development intensification that would not be harmonious with the character of existing development. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: It was strongly felt by the community councils that the existing nonresidential land uses already impact adjacent low-density residential neighborhoods. The initial traffic impact analysis, first phase, identifies trip generation data collected on the existing school located at 800 South and Lincoln Street. The rate of vehicles traveling to and from the schools, including buses, during the peak, morning period was 571 vehicles per hour. Student passenger occupancy rate was 1.2 students per vehicle. The petition proposal relocates this impact to Sunnyside Avenue and Guardsman Way. These adjacent arterial streets can accommodate the additional 400 trips generated by relocation of the school. Planning Commission Staff Report Mt. Olivet Cemetery Petitinrn 400-05-0R and 400-05-09 15 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment Findings: Rezoning the Mt Olivet parcel to Institutional would permit more intensive development than allowed within the existing Open Space Zoning District. The increased level of potential development could increase traffic generation levels and impact adjacent properties. The traffic generated by the proposed uses of an upper and middle school, soccer field and open space would not adversely affect adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts,which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The East Bench fault line traverses the Mt. Olivet property. The inferred fault line location is at the northwest corner of the requested rezone area. The fault line location may or may not require site relocation of the future school building. Geotechnical evaluation of the site would be required as part of the building permit approval process. The subject property lies within the Primary Aquifer Discharge Area Overlay. For cemeteries to operate within this overlay area additional operational controls are required to ensure potential contaminants are handled properly and are not discharged into the aquifer. Proper handling of potential contaminants by the proposed middle and upper schools would be subject to the same limitations of the overlay district. —, if 111 400 L --(7k 1I _1 - 1 4 i1 r - ii ••. th _ 11 ��-� - ki , _. l ault L_. 1 JP" mod. am; i ��=.- 300Bilrim_ Iv _ ow_ � I II era .7 O.Cali • Findings: The proposed development concept plans, through implementation of any necessary site design modifications and operational controls can be consistent with applicable zoning overlay districts. Planning Commission Staff Report Mt. Olivet Cemetery Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 16 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems,water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: Applicable City Departments were requested to review and comment on the proposed amendments and identify whether existing facilities and services are adequate to accommodate the development associated with the proposed amendments. The Public Utilities Department stated a six-inch water main in Sunnyside Avenue would service the subject site. Water system improvements may be necessary if the existing system fails to meet the State and City's Fire Department flow requirements. The Police Department stated two other school facilities exist within the surrounding neighborhood. One is a public school, the East High School and the other is a private school, the Judge Memorial High School. The Police Department has assigned only one Police Resource Officer to East High School. Provision of any additional law enforcement needs for the proposed upper and middle schools would need to be from the normally assigned patrol officer within this area. The concentration of schools within this area with similar starting schedules would provide an increased amount of traffic on both Sunnyside Avenue and Guardsman Way. This would have potential impacts on traffic congestion and resources for accident and traffic management. The Transportation Division reviewed the traffic data identifying additional trips generated and that the property has direct access to an arterial street. The Division recommended approval. Findings: The public facility services and utilities are in place to serve the subject 13- acre parcel. The final intensity of development and needs that the future development would place on services and utilities is unknown. If a specific developments demand exceeds service capacity, then the developer would be required to make system improvements as part of obtaining a building permit. The adjacent arterial streets can absorb the traffic generated by the proposed uses. RECOMMENDATION: The fmdings of fact show that the requested master plan amendment and rezoning of the Mt. Olivet property is not consistent with the East Bench Community Master Plan. Rezoning the property from open space to institutional land uses is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the Open Space Zoning District. This purpose is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas. Planning Commission Staff Report Mt. Olivet Cemetery Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 17 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment Potential development intensities of the Institutional Zoning District are greater than permitted uses within the Opens Space Zoning District and have potential conflicts with the overall character of development in the immediate vicinity. Minimizing potential intensities and conflicts could occur through restrictive covenants or modification of the zoning request to ensure that the proposed open space areas would remain open in the future. Based on the findings of fact, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the requests of Petition 400-05-08 and Petition 400-05-09, to amend the East Bench Master Plan and rezone the 13 acres portion of Mt. Olivet Cemetery property from Open Space to Institutional land use and zoning classifications. Mt. Olivet Parcel zoned RMF-75 A narrow parcel along the northwest corner of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery property is presently zoned RMF-75. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission initiate action to have the RMF-75 zoned portion of the Mt. Olivet property included in a petition considered for a map amendment as part of a Planning Division's Zoning Map fine-tuning petition. Exhibits Exhibit 1: Master Plan Amendment Application Exhibit 2: Zoning Amendment Application Exhibit 3: Applicants Comments - Standards for Zoning Amendment Exhibit 4: Proposed Conceptual Plan and Existing Site Conditions Exhibit 5: Open Space Advisory Committee/Board and Department Comments Exhibit 6: Community Input a. Community Councils b. Support of Petition Request c. Opposed to Petition Request Exhibit 7: Applicant letter regarding Yalecrest Community Council meeting Exhibit 8: Congressional Land Grants and Tenth Circuit Court Summary Planning Commission Staff Report Mt.Olivet Cemetery Petitions 400-05-08 and 400-05-09 18 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment J Exhibit 1 Master Plan Amendment Application ANp y 7! 44.4 • ROWLAND HALL • ST. MARK'S SCHOOL Philip G. McCarthey Campus April 20, 2005 HAND DELIVERED SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 4111 Attention: Planning Division Re: Master Plan Amendment Application Dear Sirs: This Master Plan Amendment Application is being made on behalf of Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School, a Utah nonprofit corporation ("RHSM"), as agent for the Mount Olivet Cemetery Association(the "Association"), with reference to 13.087 acres of real property located west of Guardsman Way, between 500 South and Sunnyside Avenue in Salt Lake City, Utah (approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue) (as described and outlined in attached Exhibit "A,"the"Mt. Olivet Property"). The Association has authorized RHSM to prepare this petition for an amendment to the Salt Lake City East Bench Master Plan in conjunction with an application for a zoning amendment with respect to the Mt. Olivet Property. On April 10, 2003,RHSM entered into a contract with the Association to purchase the Mt. Olivet Property. The contract is subject to a number of conditions, including the re-zoning of the Mt. Olivet Property to "institutional"and the removal of the reversionary clause included in the deed held by the Association. The reversionary restriction states that, if ever the Mt. Olivet Property ceases to be used for cemetery purposes, the Mt. Olivet Property shall revert back to the ownership of the federal government. As you may know, the government generally has released such reversionary interests when property(a) is not used for the purpose specified in the reversionary clause, (b) is no longer needed by the owner, (c) is inconvenient or inappropriate for the owner's continued use and operation, (d) is needed by another entity that provides some public benefit, and/or (e) is no longer needed by the federal government or, alternatively, if there are no significant costs to the federal government in connection with the release. The Association and RHSM believe the circumstances with regard to the Mt. Olivet Property support a government release of the reversionary interest, and RHSM is prepared to 720 Guardsman Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 • phone 801.355.7485 • fax 801.363.5521 • www.rhsm.org Saltlake-248474.2 0044379-00001 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 2 pursue the removal of the reversionary clause. Specifically, the Association must sell the Mt. Olivet Property in order to have sufficient funds to repair and maintain the remaining cemetery property. (In this connection, you might note that the Association has enough land, excluding the Mt. Olivet Property and the property leased to the Salt Lake City School District (immediately to the west), to provide burial space for another ninety(90) years.) The Association, in fact, cannot make needed capital improvements and perpetually maintain the cemetery, without the proceeds from the sale of the Mt. Olivet Property. However, in advance of securing the removal of this reversionary interest, the Mt. Olivet Property needs to be re-zoned "institutional" from "open space." Absent such change, the federal government will not consider any removal of the reversionary clause. To these ends, please be advised as follows: 1. Purpose for the Amendment. The goal of Salt Lake City's Open Space Plan is to conserve the natural environment, enhance open space amenities for all citizens, connect the various parts of the City to natural environments and educate the citizens on proper use of open space'. The Mt. Olivet Property, in its current fenced, unimproved state, fails to meet any of City's open space goals. RHSM's proposed use of the Mt. Olivet Property, on the other hand, involves preserving approximately two-thirds of the Mt. Olivet Property as "green space"with soccer fields and open ground, useable by the public for soccer league games, as well as for casual recreation and play (see the proposed development plans attached as Exhibit"C"). RHSM's plans involve developing playing fields initially and, later, constructing middle and upper school buildings on the northernmost portions of the Mt. Olivet Property. However, as indicated, RHSM's plans also involve preserving approximately two-thirds of the 13.087 acres as green "open" space. The public benefit RHSM proposes to provide with recreational playing fields and the overall beautification of the Mt. Olivet Property would significantly benefit Salt Lake City and the surrounding community. These uses and improvements, RHSM believes, outweigh any perceived advantages to keeping the Mt. Olivet Property in its existing fenced, unimproved"open space" condition. ' THE SALT LAKE CITY OPEN SPACE PLAN(ADOPTED BY THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 1992) SaltLake-248474.2 0044379-00001 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 3 Moreover, these uses are consistent with, and further, the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies (as stated above) of Salt Lake City's Open Space Plan. As noted, RHSM's proposed plans predominantly conserve the natural environment and provide open space amenities for all citizens. These proposed plans were designed and developed in a way that conforms with the overall character and harmony of the surrounding area and will have no apparent adverse affect on the adjacent properties, Indeed, as described above, the community will wholly benefit from the new amenities and the natural enhancement of this area. 2. Why the present Master Plan requires amending. As stated, rezoning of the Mt. Olivet Property as "institutional" is a condition precedent to RHSM's purchase of the Mt. Olivet Property. As such, absent such rezone, RHSM may determine not to purchase the Mt. Olivet Property. Again, if the Master Plan is amended and the Mt. Olivet Property is re-designated as "institutional,"RHSM intends to complete the purchase of the Mt. Olivet Property and, as soon as practicable, deliver a tremendous benefit to Salt Lake City and the community. In any development of the Mt. Olivet Property, RHSM will preserve approximately two-thirds of the 13.087 acres of Property as "green space,"with landscaping improvements, soccer fields and open ground, useable by the public for soccer league games, as well as for casual recreation and enjoyment. Although it may be some time before RHSM will be able to raise the money needed to build on the Mt. Olivet Property,RHSM, in the near term,hopes to be able to develop the playing fields and make other, similar improvements to the Mt. Olivet Property. 3. Master Plan Amendment Application. Attached hereto as Exhibit"B"is the application for Amendment to Master Plan. 4. Site Map and Related Information. Attached hereto as Exhibit"D" is a site map of, as part of adjacent properties, the Mt. Olivet Property. 5. Adjacent Property Owners. Attached hereto as Exhibit"E" is a list of the names and addresses of all property owners within 450 feet of the Property, mailing labels for each property owner and a check for the cost of first class postage to the same. 6. Affidavit of RHSM. Attached hereto as Exhibit "F" is an affidavit of RHSM stating that petitioner has met with and explained the proposal to the Yalecrest Community Council,pursuant to Title 2, Chapter 2.62 of the Salt Lake City Code. 7. Agent Authorization. Attached hereto as Exhibit"G" is an Agent Authorization authorizing RHSM to act on behalf of the Association. SaltLake-248474.2 0044379-00001 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 4 8. Related Materials and Data supporting this Application. Additional information included for your review include: a. Traffic Study. Attached hereto as Exhibit"H"is a Phase 1 Preliminary Traffic Study. The traffic impacts of any development near Sunnyside Avenue or Guardsman Way is a particular concern to RHSM. RHSM, like Salt Lake City and the community, takes a keen interest in the safety of children attending RHSM and those in the surrounding community. As such, RHSM hired Fehr&Peers Transportation Consultants, to prepare a preliminary study assessing the traffic impacts,based on the limited information now available, of someday relocating the middle and upper schools to the Mt. Olivet Property. The Phase 1 preliminary traffic study for such a facility predicts only a 18%increase in automobile traffic during the peak weekday drop-off times (8:00 a.m. —8:30 a.m.) for 170 school days annually. The rest of the day students are in school and generally are not generating additional traffic on Sunnyside Avenue or Guardsman Way. After school, students leave the campus over several hours depending on their participation in sports, clubs or other interests on campus, thus ameliorating traffic impacts. RHSM requests that the results of this study be considered in the evaluation of this application and as a reflection of RHSM's commitment to providing a positive alternative use for this Property. b. Background and Related Information. Attached as Exhibit"I"is a summary of the history of the Mt. Olivet Property and,respectively,the needs and objectives of the Association and RHSM. 9. Filing fee. Attached to this application(see Exhibit"J") is a check for the required filing fee in the amount of$1,700. Please also find enclosed, for your convenience, three(3) extra copies of this letter(with exhibits). Please call if you have any questions or need anything further in connection with this matter or otherwise. Salt1ake-248474 2 0044379-00001 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 5 Thank you for your consideration in these matters. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, ROWLAND HALL-ST. MARK'S SCHOOL Juli. :arrett, Acting Headmaster Enclosures cc: Ms. Paula Swaner-Sargetakis (w/encls.) Guy P. Kroesche, Esq. (w/encls.) Mr. Robert Steiner(w/encls.) Mr. Daniel Valdez, Sexton, Mount Olivet Cemetery Association (w/encls.) William H. Adams, Esq., Mount. Olivet Cemetery Association(w/encls.) Rosemary J. Beless, Esq., Mount. Olivet Cemetery Association(w/encls.) SaltLake-248474.2 0044379-00001 Exhibit "H" (Traffic Study) SaltLake-248474.2 0044379-00001 'PP FEHR & PEERS - TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM Date: January 21,2005 To: Rowland Hall-St. Mark's From: Fehr& Peers Associates, Inc. Subject: Middle and Upper Schools Relocation Phase I: Rowland Hall-St Mark's Local Trip Generation Study UT05-590 Introduction This memorandum provides a trip generation analysis for Rowland Hall - St. Mark's Middle and Upper Schools. This initial analysis is the first phase of a two-phase study that will assess the traffic impacts of relocating these two schools from the corner of Lincoln Street and 800 South to Sunnyside Avenue at approximately 1600 East. Included in this memorandum are the results of a local trip generation study performed in January 2005. This memorandum provides a preliminary estimate of the potential traffic impacts to Sunnyside Avenue created by the relocation of the schools. The local trip generation rates reported here will be used in Phase II to provide a thorough assessment of the traffic impacts created by this relocation. Local Trip Generation Data The main purpose of this phase was to conduct a local trip generation analysis,the objective of which was to estimate the current amount of traffic generated by the middle and upper schools. The trip generation rates observed at the existing school may then be used to accurately project trip generation for the new school. Local trip generation data was collected during the morning traffic peak period, and consisted of two parts: determining the number of vehicles as a result of dropping students off, and the number of vehicles as a result of students and faculty who park their vehicles on site. The number of vehicles and persons dropped off along Lincoln Street and 800 South were counted in fifteen minute increments from 7:30 to 8:30 AM. The number of vehicles parked in the student and faculty parking lots and on the streets adjacent to the schools were also counted before and after the peak morning period. The results of the local trip generation analysis are shown in Table 1. The rate of vehicles traveling to and from the schools, including the school buses, during the peak morning period was 571 vehicles per hour (vph). Each passenger vehicle dropping off students was observed to have an average student occupancy rate of 1.2 students per vehicle. 302 West 5400 South,Suite 100,Murray,UT 84107 (801)261-4700 Fax(801)261-0763 www.fehrandpeers.com Rowland Hall-St. Mark's January 21, 2005 Page 2 of 2 TABLE 1 AM Peak Hour Local Trip Generation Rates Number of AM Peak Hour Trips Trips AM Land Use Enrolled Trip Generation Entering Exiting Trips Students Middle& Upper Schools 486 571 338 233 571 Preliminary Impact Analysis Fehr & Peers performed a preliminary estimate of the increase in traffic expected at Sunnyside Avenue. Because the new schools will be similar in size to the existing schools, the projected trip generation is expected to be the same as the current trip generation of 571 vph during the peak morning period. However, an estimated 25% of trips to the schools currently travel on Sunnyside Avenue, and should be accounted for in estimating new trips to this street. The portion of the school traffic already using Sunnyside Avenue was calculated by using a list of the zip codes of the students and estimating probable travel paths from these zip code areas to the schools. Based on the trip generation rate derived from this study and the above mentioned adjustment, the relocation of the Rowland Hall — St. Mark's middle and upper schools will generate approximately 428 new trips per hour during the morning peak period. Based on an estimated peak hour volume of 1,220 vph for Sunnyside Avenue, the relocation of the schools will result in an approximate increase of 18% in traffic. Phase II will refine these estimates and evaluate the impacts of increasing traffic on Sunnyside Avenue and major intersections surrounding the school. Exhibit"I" • (Summary of the History of the Mt. Olivet Property, and Objectives of the Association and RHSM) Saltlake-248474.2 0044379-00001 For: RHSM Mt. Olivet Committee Open House Re: Background for RHSM Acquisition of 13.2 Acres of Land West of the McCarthey Campus Date: February 16, 2005 We understand the history of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association property west of the McCarthey Lower/Beginning School Campus as follows: In the 1870's Congress set aside land for the actual Mt. Olivet cemetery. In the early 1900's, the U.S. Government wanted to buy land in"Research Park"which was owned by a son of Brigham Young(Legrand Young?). (Apparently, Mr. Young did not want to sell to the U.S. Government.) Therefore, the U.S. Government arranged the purchase of the "Research Park" land by the Association. The Association then traded the"Research Park" land to the U.S. Government for the land under contract to RHSM (for ease of discussion here, the"Mt. Olivet Property") and the East High playing fields just west of the Mt. Olivet Property. The U.S. Government continues to hold a"reversionary interest"2 in the Mt. Olivet Property, such that if it ceases to be used for cemetery purposes it reverts to the U.S. Government3. 2 The Reversionary Interest The United States may obtain the property back if it ceases to be used as a cemetery. Release of Reversionary Interest The property is not used for the purpose specified in the reversionary clause The owner of the property no longer needs the property The property is inconvenient or inappropriate for the owner's use -� The property is needed by another entity that provides some public benefit - The U. S.Government doesn't need the property - No significant costs to federal, State or local governments from a release of the reversionary interest 3 The East High Playing Fields Lease Exception The East High playing fields are leased to Salt Lake City pursuant to a 1992 Act of Congress,which allows for the lease of such property for a period of not more than 70 years for other than cemetery purposes,so long as such additional uses will not prevent future use for cemetery purposes. SaltLake-248474 2 0044379-00001 The Mt. Olivet Property was an alfalfa field in the early years of the Association's ownership. It was used to graze the horses necessary for cemetery work. The Association has enough space in the existing cemetery area to continue its operations for at least ninety years. The Association needs to sell the Mt. Olivet Property to be able to provide perpetual care at the cemetery. If RHSM does not purchase the Mt. Olivet Property, the Association may sell the land to the University of Utah or,presumably, will sell the Mt. Olivet Property to Larkin Mortuary or a similar operation.4 In order for RHSM to buy the Mt. Olivet Property, RHSM needs Congress to remove the "reversionary interest"the U.S. Government holds in the Mt. Olivet Property. As part of RHSM's efforts to secure the removal of the"reversionary interest"and, in that regard, to ensure the support of Utah's congressional representatives and senators, RHSM needs the support of Salt Lake City and, if at all possible, the surrounding community. RHSM believes that its ownership of the Mt. Olivet Property will deliver a net benefit to Salt Lake City and the surrounding community, both in the immediate neighborhood and more broadly. As such, RHSM believes that Salt Lake City and the surrounding community should support RHSM's efforts in this regard. The reasons are several: First, about two-thirds of the land would be turned "green"with soccer fields and open ground. Second, the long run construction of a middle and upper school building at the northern most edge of the Mt. Olivet Property would carry on the open aesthetics of the McCarthey Lower/Beginning School Campus. Third, for the first time, this land would be useable by the public for soccer league games as well as for casual recreation and play in the same manner as our current soccer field, which is used heavily by youth league soccer teams. RHSM believes that making the Mt. Olivet Property available for athletic and recreational uses, in addition to the green space through landscaping improvements, will benefit the community and Salt Lake City. These uses and improvements, RHSM believes, outweigh any advantages perceived by keeping the Mt. Olivet Property in its existing, fenced and unimproved, condition. It may be many years before RHSM could raise the money needed to build a new campus on the Mr. Olivet Property. Although that may be, ultimately, the anticipated use of the Mt. Olivet Property, it may be beyond RHSM's reach for a long time. However, it is possible that RHSM could take the (hopefully) interim step of developing the playing fields in the near term, in a way not to interfere with construction at the north end of the Mt. Olivet Property in the future. 4 The University of Utah does not need to obtain building permits from Salt Lake City as does RHSM,and the University is not subject to zoning controls as is RHSM. Saltlake-248474.2 0044379-00001 The traffic impacts of any development near Sunnyside Avenue or Guardsman Way is something to which RHSM would pay careful attention. RHSM, like Salt Lake City and the community, takes a keen interest in the safety of our children those attending RHSM and those in the surrounding community. As such, RHSM hired Fehr &Peers, as transportation consultants, to prepare a preliminary study assessing the traffic impacts,based on the limited information now available, of someday relocating the middle and upper schools to the Mt. Olivet Property. RHSM is encouraged that, during the peak time at the start of the school day, which is the only time of significant traffic impact, the approximate traffic increase would only be approximately 18%. The rest of the day students are in school and generally are not generating additional traffic on Sunnyside Avenue or Guardsman Way.5 After school, students leave the campus over several hours depending on their participation in sports, clubs or other interests on campus, thus ameliorating traffic impacts. The purchase of the Association's 13.2 acres will strengthen our school with the proximity of the RHSM campuses,with the promise that physical facilities in the Upper and Middle schools will be commensurate with those of the Beginning and Lower Schools, and with the learning opportunities that necessarily will result from the shared environments. We hope that the long term success of RHSM will also be viewed as a benefit to Salt Lake City, along with the public benefit we propose to provide on the Mt. Olivet Property. Our immediate objectives are to work cooperatively with the surrounding community, viewed as RHSM's neighbors, and Salt Lake City officials, to incorporate neighborhood interests into our planning for any new and relocated RHSM campus. Looking further ahead, we need to obtain the release of the reversionary interest by early 2007 in order to complete the purchase of the Mt. Olivet Property within the terms of our contract with the Association. S It should be noted that,at present,RHSM does not contemplate access to the Mt.Olivet Property, when improved, from Guardsman Way during the school day. SaltLake-248474.2 0044379-00001 Exhibit 2 Zoning Amendment Application �kA f.i ROWLAND HALL • ST. MARK'S SCHOOL Philip G. McCarthey Campus April 20, 2005 HAND DELIVERED SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Attention: Planning Division Re: Zoning Amendment Application Dear Sirs: This Zoning Amendment Application is being made on behalf of Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School, a Utah nonprofit corporation("RHSM"), as agent for the Mount Olivet Cemetery Association (the"Association"), with respect to property located west of Guardsman Way, between 500 South and Sunnyside Avenue in Salt Lake City, Utah (approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue) (as described and outlined in attached Exhibit"A,"the "Mt. Olivet Property"). This letter constitutes a petition for an amendment to the zoning designation applicable to the Mt. Olivet Property and, further, is being made in conjunction with a Master Plan Amendment Application for the Mt. Olivet Property. On April 10, 2003, RHSM entered into a contract with the Association to purchase the Mt. Olivet Property. The contract is subject to a number of conditions, including the re-zoning of the Mt. Olivet Property to "institutional"and the removal of the reversionary clause included in the deed held by the Association. The reversionary restriction states that, if ever the Mt. Olivet Property ceases to be used for cemetery purposes, the Mt. Olivet Property shall revert back to the ownership of the federal government. As you may know, the government generally has released such reversionary interests when property (a) is not used for the purpose specified in the reversionary clause, (b) is no longer needed by the owner, (c) is inconvenient or inappropriate for the owner's continued use and operation, (d) is needed by another entity that provides some public benefit, and/or(e) is no longer needed by the federal government or, alternatively, if there are no significant costs to the federal government in connection with the release. The Association and RHSM believe the circumstances with regard to the Mt. Olivet Property support a government release of the reversionary interest and RHSM is prepared to pursue the removal of the reversionary clause. Specifically, the Association must sell the Mt. 720 Guardsman Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 • phone 801.355.7485 • fax 801.363.5521 • www.rhsm.org SaltLake-2487132 0044379-00001 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 2 Olivet Property in order to have sufficient funds to repair and maintain the remaining cemetery property. (In this connection, you might note that the Association has enough land, excluding the Mt. Olivet Property and the property leased to the Salt Lake City School District (immediately to the west), to provide burial space for another ninety(90) years.) The Association, in fact, cannot make needed capital improvements and perpetually maintain the cemetery, without the proceeds from the sale of the Mt. Olivet Property. However, in advance of securing the removal of this reversionary interest, the Mt. Olivet Property needs to be re-zoned"institutional" from "open space." Absent such change, the federal government will not consider any removal of the reversionary clause. To these ends,please be advised as follows: 1. Purpose for the Amendment. The Property's zoning designation was changed from "institutional" to "open space"pursuant to a Salt Lake City zoning ordinance enacted in 1995. This petition seeks the reinstatement of the institutional zoning designation. It is a fenced lot in an unimproved condition. The Association has substantial operating deficits and is unable to appropriately maintain the Mt. Olivet Property. As stated above, the Association has enough land in the existing cemetery area to provide burial space for at least ninety(90) years. However, as also indicated, the Association will not be able to make needed capital improvements and perpetually maintain the cemetery unless the Mt. Olivet Property is sold. The Association needs to sell the Mt. Olivet Property to fund the financing of over $3,000,000 of required infrastructure improvements and to provide perpetual care for the remaining cemetery property. Accordingly, on April 10, 2003,the Association entered into a contract with RHSM to sell the Mt. Olivet Property. The contract is conditioned on the zoning designation being reinstated as institutional. 2. Description of the Proposed Use. RHSM's proposed use of Property involves preserving approximately two-thirds of the Mt. Olivet Property as open"green space"with soccer fields and open ground, useable by the public for soccer league games, as well as for casual recreation and play. See the proposed plans development attached as Exhibit "C." More specifically, RHSM's proposed plans involve developing playing fields initially and, at some time in the future, constructing middle and upper school buildings on the northernmost portions of the Mt. Olivet Property, while preserving approximately two-thirds of the 13.087 acres as green"open" space. The public benefit RHSM proposes to provide with recreational playing fields and the overall beautification of the Mt. Olivet Property would significantly benefit Salt Lake City and catrt akr_24R713 2 0044379-00001 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 3 the surrounding community. These uses and improvements, RHSM believes, outweigh any perceived advantages to keeping the Mt. Olivet Property in its existing fenced, unimproved "open space"condition. 3. Reasons why the Present Zoning is Inappropriate. The goal of Salt Lake City's Open Space Plan is to conserve the natural environment, enhance open space amenities for all citizens, connect the various parts of the City to natural environments and educate the citizens on proper use of open space'. The Property, in its current fenced, unimproved state, fails to meet any of the City's open space goals. The Association is unable to properly maintain this land and needs to sell the Mt. Olivet Property to make needed capital improvements and perpetually maintain the cemetery. RHSM's proposed use of the Mt. Olivet Property, on the other hand, involves preserving approximately two-thirds of the Mt. Olivet Property as "green space"with soccer fields and open ground, useable by the public for soccer league games as well as for casual recreation and play (see the proposed development plans attached as Exhibit"C"). As indicated, RHSM's proposed plans involve developing playing fields initially and, later, constructing middle and upper school buildings at the northernmost edge of the Mt. Olivet Property. However, RHSM's plans also involve preserving approximately two-thirds of the 13.087 acres as green"open"space. Moreover, RHSM's proposed plans are consistent with, and further, the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies (as stated above) of Salt Lake City's Open Space Plan. As noted, RHSM's proposed plans predominantly conserve the natural environment and provide open space amenities for all citizens. These proposed plans were designed and developed in a way that conforms with the overall character and harmony of the surrounding area and will have no apparent adverse affect on the adjacent properties. Indeed, as described above, the entire community will benefit from the new amenities and the natural enhancement of this area. RHSM is committed to keeping two-thirds of the Mt. Olivet Property as green space, but RHSM's plans require the Mt. Olivet Property be returned to an institutional zoning designation. Other prospective buyers of the Mt. Olivet Property are not likely to be as committed to keeping so much of the Mt. Olivet Property designated as green space nor are they as advanced in negotiations with the Association or in formulating plans for the Mt. Olivet Property. 4. Zoning Amendment Application. Attached hereto as Exhibit"B" is RHSM's Zoning Amendment Application for the Mt. Olivet Property. THE SALT LAKE CITY OPEN SPACE PLAN(ADOPTED BY THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 1992) SaltLake-248713.2 0044379-00001 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 4 5. Site Map and Related Information. Attached hereto as Exhibit "D" is a site map of, as part of adjacent properties, the Mt. Olivet Property. 6. Adjacent Property Owners. Attached hereto as Exhibit"E" is a list of the names and addresses of all property owners within 450 feet of the Mt. Olivet Property, mailing labels for each property owner and a check for the cost of first class postage to the same. 7. Agent Authorization. Attached hereto as Exhibit"F"is an Agent Authorization authorizing RHSM to act on behalf of the Association. 8. Affidavit of RHSM. Attached hereto as Exhibit"G" is an affidavit of RHSM stating that petitioner has met with and explained to the Yalecrest Community Council the proposed zoning amendment,pursuant to Title 2, Chapter 2.62 of the Salt Lake City Code. 9. Related Materials and Data supporting this Application. Additional information included for your review include: a. Traffic Study. Attached hereto as Exhibit "H" is a Phase 1 Preliminary Traffic Study. The traffic impacts of any development near Sunnyside Avenue or Guardsman Way is a particular concern to RHSM. RHSM, like Salt Lake City and the community, takes a keen interest in the safety of children attending RHSM and those in the surrounding community. As such, RHSM hired Fehr &Peers Transportation Consultants, to prepare a preliminary study assessing the traffic impacts,based on the limited information now available, of someday relocating the middle and upper schools to the Mt. Olivet Property. The Phase 1 preliminary traffic study for such a facility predicts only a 18% increase in automobile traffic during the peak weekday drop-off times (8:00 a.m. — 8:30 a.m.) for 170 school days annually. The rest of the day students are in school and generally are not generating additional traffic on Sunnyside Avenue or Guardsman Way. After school, students leave the campus over several hours depending on their participation in sports, clubs or other interests on campus, thus ameliorating traffic impacts. RHSM requests that the results of this study be considered in the evaluation of this application and as a reflection of RHSM's commitment to providing a positive alternative use for this Property. b. Background and Related Information. Attached as Exhibit"I" is a summary of the history of the Mt. Olivet Property and, respectively, the needs and objectives of the Association and RHSM. 10. Filing fee. Attached to this application (see Exhibit"J") is a check for the required filing fee in the amount of$1,700. Salttake-248713.2 0044379-00001 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 5 Please find enclosed, for your convenience, three (3) extra copies of this letter(with exhibits), together with ten(10) copies of the proposed site plans, drawn to scale. Please call if you have any questions or need anything further in connection with this matter or otherwise. Thank you for your consideration in these matters. Sincerely, R• I AND HALL-ST. MARK'S SCHOOL Azmod-- Juli-O Acting Headmaster i Enclosures cc: Ms. Paula Swaner-Sargetakis (w/encls.) Guy P. Kroesche, Esq. (w/encls.) Mr. Robert Steiner(w/encls.) Mr. Daniel Valdez, Sexton, Mount. Olivet Cemetery Association (w/encls.) William H. Adams, Esq., Mount Olivet Cemetery Association(w/encls.) Rosemary J. Beless, Esq., Mount Olivet Cemetery Association (w/encls.) SaltLake-248713.2 0044379-00001 Exhibit 3 Applicants Comments Standards for Zoning Amendment Snell&Wilmer L.L.P. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH LAW OFFICES 15 West South Temple,Suite 1200 PHOENIX,ARIZONA Gateway Tower West Salt Lake City,Utah 84101 TUCSON,ARIZONA (801)257-1900 Fax:(801)257-1800 IRVINE,CALIFORNIA wwwswlawcom DENVER,COLORADO Cary D.Jones(801)257-1811 LAS VEGAS,NEVADA cjones@swlaw.com June 29, 2005 VIA HAND-DELIVERY Mr. Everett Joyce Salt Lake City Planning Department SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 South State Street, Suite 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School ("RHSM"): Mt. Olivet Property Dear Everett: Following up on our meeting with you, and in anticipation of our meeting on July 5th, we have set forth below RHSM's responses to the enumerated finding of fact issues which you outlined for us. Consistent with our discussions, these responses are intended to supplement RHSM's Master Plan and Zoning Amendment applications. Please consider the following: A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. The East Bench Master Plan of April 1987 identifies the Mount Olivet Cemetery property as "institutional" land. It accepts that the land to the north of Sunnyside Avenue "consists exclusively of public institutions..."1 The plan recognizes Sunnyside Avenue as being"well suited as an arterial."2 See, East Bench Master Plan, April 1987,p. 8. See also the map on page 9. The plan also indicates a need to accommodate pedestrian access from the residential area to the south and Sunnyside Park. See, p. 8. This need is referred to once again in the Open Space Master plan of 1992: Transvalley Foothills Section (Map 10). Stated needs, among others, include(a)"revising" . . . the rights of way to expand the sidewalks and green spaces on the north side of Sunnyside Avenue;"(b) investigating the feasibility feasibility of constructing a Class 1 bicycle path within the existing right-of- way; (c)expanding" . . . the corridor at the Mt. Olivet parcel to extend the amount of open space along the corridor;" and (d) beginning" . . . path construction on the north side of Sunnyside Avenue." The Map also includes the highlighted notation: "SUNNYSIDE AVENUE: The north side of Sunnyside Avenue is lined with both private and public open space. The South half of Mt. Olivet Cemetery parcel is vacant and could generate development pressure in the future. This should be monitored to assure the corridor is kept wide enough for adequate walkways and Open Space. A crosswalk could be developed to connect at the baseball area on the east side of 1300 East to the adjacent trail corridor and residential area." Snell &Wilmer L.L.P. Everett Joyce June 29, 2005 Page 2 The Open Space Master Plan of 1992 has a focus for the Sunnyside Avenue/Mt. Olivet Cemetery area of"improving the access transition from public streets to pedestrian/bicycle corridors and connection to the mountains area recreation opportunities."3 From Guardsman Way to the baseball field close to 1300 East, there has been no apparent progress toward the goals and objectives of the Open Space Master Plan since its adoption by the City Council in 1992. The RHSM proposal would in large measure implement the stated purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the plan. First, sidewalks and green spaces would be created on the north of Sunnyside Avenue. Second, along the walkway/corridor several hundred yards of playing fields would buffer the walkway/corridor from the potential site of the private school building. Third, the soccer fields, available for use by public youth soccer leagues and neighborhood children, will support the goals of the 1943 Master Plan, and of the 1967 Master Plan which recognized an ongoing need for recreational facilities. Fourth, the RHSM proposal addresses the specific goals established by the Open Space Master Plan of 1992 in this way: a. "Conserve the natural environment": The open vistas and views from and across the Mt. Olivet property will be preserved, grass will grow where the alfalfa once grew in the day of pioneer settlement, and an outdoor lifestyle will be promoted with the creation of the walkway/corridor and soccer fields. b. "Enhance open space amenities for all citizens": For the first time this land will be useable by the public for recreation instead of lying barricaded behind a fence and offering only a sense of space for only a few neighbors across the street. The open view will anyway be largely preserved. c. "Connect the various parts of the City to natural environments": When finally built, the walkway/corridor will give a natural connection to the Red Butte Creek Corridor, Miller Park, Sunnyside Park, Pioneer Trails State Park, Rotary Glen State Park, the Shoreline Trail, and Emigration Canyon. The RHSM proposal will provide one big link in the Transvalley Corridor. d. "Educate the citizens on the proper use of open space": The RHSM proposal will be an example of how to preserve the greatest benefit of open space for the most people. The RHSM proposal to acquire the land and use two thirds of it for playing fields and roughly one-third of it for a needed school building is the city's best chance to preserve and improve the majority of this open land. The RHSM proposal furthers other public interests. First, while not a part of the zoning plan for Salt Lake City, one of the clear public goals for the City is the provision of places for the burial of the dead. The provision under state law that grants to cemetery associations such as Mount Olivet Cemetery Association the power of eminent domain to acquire property for cemetery purposes underscores the importance of providing for the burial of the dead. In Open Space Master Plan of 1992, "Recommendations and Priorities". Snell &Wilmer L.L.P. Everett Joyce June 29, 2005 Page 3 addition Salt Lake City spends a significant amount in maintaining the city owned cemetery. The proposed amendment will be a significant factor in maintaining the Mount Olivet Cemetery and enabling the cemetery to continue providing, on the remaining cemetery property, for the burial of the dead and, further, for the perpetual care of the existing burial sites. Second, the RHSM acquisition of the Mt. Olivet Property would permit the school to offer its programs in an improved physical plant and this would support its educational mission. Permitting RHSM to improve its institution with its own money strengthens a local asset which inures to be benefit of Salt Lake City. This property is needed by RHSM, so that it might build playing fields now, and someday needed replacement facilities for its middle and upper schools, which are in aging buildings about five blocks west of the Mt. Olivet property. For over 120 years, RHSM has provided a significant public benefit to Salt Lake City and the surrounding community. RHSM has a stable enrollment of over 970 students and occupies a vital educational niche in Salt Lake City. Twenty percent (20%) of the students' parents are employed at the University of Utah and in Research Park. RHSM is a community asset to which companies recruiting from out of state often point. In addition, the school dedicates approximately ten percent (10%) of its operating income to financial aid, and nearly twenty percent(20%) of RHSM's students represent diverse ethnic, national and racial backgrounds. The student body also volunteers approximately 12,000 hours in community service each year. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. As stated in the 1982 East Bench Master Plan, the land north of Sunnyside Avenue serves institutional purposes. Institutional use can be made attractive and enhance the beauty of a neighborhood overall. Just east of the Mt. Olivet property stands the RHSM Beginning and Lower School campus. It is admired architecturally, has its own playing field, and has improved the appearance of Guardsman Way. If acquired by RHSM the Mt. Olivet property will mesh with the adjacent campus in its landscaping and overall design. From the East High football field through to Sunnyside Park the preeminence of playing fields, the integrated landscaping, the walkway/corridor and the unified campus will present a coherent view for over a mile east to west. Looking from Sunnyside to the north, the modestly proportioned RHSM's buildings will buffer and transition to the larger facilities on Guardsman Way. The proposed Master Plan amendment is harmonious with the existing cemetery to the north of the subject property. Locating a school along the edge of the remaining cemetery property, with the buffer that will exist, will not detract from the cemetery. In fact, RHSM's proposed plans, when compared to the undeveloped state of the property today, will enhance the remaining cemetery property. RHSM's proposed plans predominantly conserve the natural environment and provide open space amenities for the entire community. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Until the Mt. Olivet property is developed, there will be no adverse impact on any adjacent properties. If the property is developed by RHSM, we expect that, other than a nominal increase in traffic, there will not be any other adverse impacts on adjacent properties. In the Snell &Wilmer L.L.P. Everett Joyce June 29, 2005 Page 4 event the property is fully developed as proposed, the anticipated traffic impact of a Middle and Upper School campus on the Mt. Olivet property is an eighteen percent(18%) increase for approximately an hour each school morning. At other times, students are in school and generally are not generating additional traffic on Sunnyside Avenue or Guardsman Way. After school, students leave the campus over several hours depending on their participation in sports, clubs or other interests on campus, thus ameliorating any traffic impacts. Moreover, the estimated traffic impact does not take into account the fact that much of the morning traffic already is traversing Sunnyside Avenue in order to reach the RHSM Lincoln Street campus, a circumstance that no longer will exist once the Mt. Olivet property is developed and the Lincoln Street campus closed. As we have discussed with the community, however, RHSM is committed to working with the neighborhood and the City to address any negative impacts. RHSM, as is the case with the adjacent Beginning and Lower School campus, intends to continue to be a good neighbor and, with the adjacent property owners, work to keep traffic in check, and enhance and protect our community. To these ends, as soon as RHSM develops playing fields on the Mt. Olivet property, access for the entire community also will be possible. Aesthetically, too, RHSM's landscaping and improvements will improve the Mt. Olivet property for the community. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts, which may impose additional standards. RHSM is not aware of any overlay districts covering the Mt. Olivet Property, which impose any additional standards, or any inconsistencies between RHSM's proposed use of the Property and any overlay zoning districts. Indeed, the properties immediately to the east of the Mt. Olivet Property are zoned institutional, consistent with the proposed amendments requested here. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. To RHSM's knowledge, all such public facilities and services are adequate for RHSM's proposed uses for the Property. RHSM encountered no special challenges in these areas when it developed its Beginning and Lower Schools immediately east of the Mt. Olivet Property and, therefore, anticipates that the public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property will be adequate for RHSM's proposed plans for the Mt. Olivet property. Snell &Wilmer L.L.P. Everett Joyce June 29, 2005 Page 5 Please call with any immediate questions or comments. We look forward to seeing you on July 5t1' Very truly yours, SNELL & WILMER 001. Cary D. Jone CDJ:11 cc: Mr. Robert Steiner Ms. Paula Swaner-Sargetakis Guy P. Kroesche, Esq. Ms. Julie Barrett Mr. Alan Sparrow Exhibit 4 Conceptual Development Plan and Existing Site Conditions • -_LAST HIGf- SCHCO_FOO BA_L FIELD_ LEASED AREA -__-f- • NEW PAVING AREA = 97,656 5 F. 107 SPACES f fffl fill fill f��flit :�1 O Om OO Ni= s C) Dy 000 r '.«I 0 m — A OOm= — m,..1 nm xn • / o z r _ m VI Jm Xi < 400 _.._, , _ D N to--1 m 0 O� ., /-1 cJn3 Z -- O 0 K SCHOOL 2 STORIES 27 SPACES 803075(F00TPRINT) 367750(TOTAL) VALLEY MENTAL HEALTH -- _—_____--.—_—___� —I— T 1 --- �''_`' --------------------i--- I r, I I mom INV n I [ I mx I 1 , N L r L�r— r Ir m�nm _. ,r;� "fin I rnx m= rn t ! •1_I- ' i r 1 ] �. r m O x , = 1 1 I r 0 i(-7, - I I !Io I 1 --.. ! j— I I 1 I I f GUARDSMAN WA, 0) I...4 T N zzzzz K 0 m m mco m m O NyyCCDD m,r ti t y 0 0 Z X • pzZoz T D 8D ( j Z p 0 1 Z r^ v J I In ti C� oo�a+D ��N�m O r zp TTTN r O r • • View from subject site looking northwest towards Mt. Olivet Cemetery _1_ I f' ti 41% View from subject site looking south towards Sunnyside Avenue EAST HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL FIELD - LEASED AREA • .I o r .. 0 rn K .. P1 m A N 0 C) 0 z VALLEY MENTAL HEALTH G z o � r x? aJ mm VJ zzzzz !K �,10 NSSD7 ,.Z242 N Tc,cc j . ;D F ,fn !Z W 'i 0 " n I= J WVVa,�ry TDO W � Fm O ViOO9 a6oc"' O�mV1 11 N r Exhibit 5 Open Space Advisory Committee/Board and Department Comments 1a_; � .IT�� � RICHARD GRAHAM ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR November 16, 2005 Salt Lake Planning Commission City&County Building—Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 RE: Mt. Olivet Cemetery Re-zone Petition Dear Members of the Planning Commission: On November 8, 2005, the Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Advisory Board met with petitioners Rowland Hall-St. Marks School, representatives of Mt. Olivet Cemetery and other interested parties, to review issues related to the application to re-zone thirteen acres of Mt. Olivet property from Open Space to Institutional (Petition 400-05-09). While we found there were persuasive arguments for and against the requested re-zoning, we concluded that the specific merits of those arguments should be properly determined by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Under the provisions of Chapter 2.88 of the Salt Lake City Code, the Open Space Lands Board is charged with devising a plan"for the preservation, protection, management and consideration for acquisition of Open Space Lands" in Salt Lake City (sec. 288.110-B-1). Our recommendation on the petition is therefore based on the belief that re-zoning currently-zoned open space in Salt Lake City is inadvisable. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801.535-7775 FAX: 801-535.7789 WWW.SLCOOV.COM Accordingly, the Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Advisory Board voted unanimously (8-0) to recommend against the requested re-zoning of the Mt. Olivet property from Open Space to Institutional. Sincerely, Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Advisory Board a2e_re4,&' c/ ) et-z-e-i- 2- 1,92 -t-,-(/ Ora. --f. 4:9-144-4014em 0 (') . e, (zz:7„ziotc.„,c>„ ____________ 6,,,,,,6\uk cc: Mayor Anderson, Rick Graham Salt Lake City Council Congressman Matheson Senator Hatch Senator Bennett • Mayor's Open Space Committee September 08, 2003 Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson Office of the Mayor • 451 South State Street, Room 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mayor Anderson, In April of 1995, Salt Lake city adopted a Zoning Rewrite Ordinance in which the Mount Olivet Cemetery was zoned Open Space "OS". In fact, for more than a decade, open space master planning, administrative action, public involvement and judicial process have provided the basis for Salt Lake City's articulation of the need for use of this cemetery land as open space. The interpretation and implementation of the Open Space Zone with specific regard to the 13 acre south east section of the Mount Olivet Cemetery has been the focus of continuing challenge and discussion by the Mount Olivet Cemetery Association, Rowland Hall St. Marks Board of Trustees, the • University of Utah, Senators Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett and Jake Garn, Congressman Jim Matheson, the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office, Salt Lake City's executive departments, members of the Salt Lake City Council and the City's community council associations. The Mayor's Open Space Committee (MOSAC) has been an active participant in this on going dialogue and recognizes that the current and future use of this property is of great significance to Salt Lake City's long term interest in preserving and protecting limited open space. We have appreciated your personal commitment to stewardship in this open space protection process. At the June 2003 meeting of the Mayor's Open Space Committee, MOSAC received an historical review of land transactions relating to the creation and proposed uses of Mount Olivet Cemetery. This was followed by discussion centered on the potential sale of the subject property by the Cemetery Association to Rowland Hall Sf. Marks for future institutional development. The realization that the City had not been invited into the purchasing or re-deeding process troubled committee members and raised concern that the City's interest in this much needed open space is in jeopardy. • Subsequent discussion regarding Mount Olivet Cemetery at the July and August 2003 meetings focused on the City's need to protect this property as open space resulting in unanimously passing an action motion by the Mayor's Open Space Committee. The MOSAC motion asks that you and the Salt Lake City Council jointly resolve to use your full administrative powers in.urging Congressman Jim Matheson, Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Bob Bennett, and all United States Congressional Representatives, to deny any request to,rewrite the legislation regarding the Mount Olivet Cemetery which would in any manner invalidate the City's planning and zoning authority. If I may be of any further assistance in this matter, please feel free to contact me or Robin Carbaugh. Thank you for you support and cooperation in preserving open space. Sincerely, • Helen M. Peters Ro in A. Carbaugh g Chair, Mayor's Open Space Committee Mayor's Open Space Committee cc: Carlton Christenson David Buhler Jill Remington-Love Alan Sparrow Tom Bonacci Page 1 of 2 Joyce, Everett From: Graham, Rick Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:09 PM To: Joyce, Everett Subject: RE: Mt. Olivet Cemetery Rezone request by Rowland Hall St. Marks school Categories: Program/Policy I hope this information is helpful. The Salt Lake City Cemetery was developed in 1847. The cemetery is approximately 250 acres in size. It is plotted to have 140,823 graves. The entire cemetery space is plotted out and developed. There is not additional space for expansion. To date, approximately 119,000 of the available graves have been used. Of the 21,800 remaining, 17,300 have been pre-sold as for future burials. Only 4,500 burial sites remain for sale. Historically, on an annual basis approximately 600 burials occur each year. If the historical numbers hold in 36 years all available sites in the cemetery will be used. Historically, on an annual basis, 350 graves sites are sold each year. Based on the 4,500 available burial sites for sale, if historical numbers hold, in 13 years all available sites will be sold. The present day data suggests that the cemetery will be use up its available burial space in 13 years. 23 years later all burial sites will be filled. Beyond that point in time the city will continue to fulfill its obligation to care for and maintain the cemetery in perpetuity without the offsetting annual revenue generated by property sales and burials. At the present time the City has no plans in place to either expand the cemetery space (the only potential expansion would be into Lindsay Gardens Park) or start a second cemetery in a new location in the City. Any decision to move in this direction would result from a policy discussion and agreement between the Mayor and City Council. If the City chooses to allow the cemetery to fill without further expansion or new development, other public or private cemeteries will be left to fill the public need. Salt Lake City has one public cemetery, the Salt Lake City Cemetery. Four(4) additional cemeteries are located within the boundaries of the City: Mt. 011ivet, a private cemetery owned by a consortium of local churches; Mt. Calvary, a private cemetery owned by the Catholic Diocese; B'nai Israel Cemetery, a private cemetery owned by the Temple Kol Ami Synagogue; and Larkin Sunset Lawn, a private cemetery owned by the Larkin family. It is my understanding that the general public has access to each of these cemeteries regardless of affiliation except B'nai. I also understand that with the exception of Mt. Olivet and Larkin cemeteries, the others face the same capacity challenges as the City's cemetery. Though the City has a municipal cemetery that it must maintain and operate in perpetuity, I know of know legal obligation the City has to maintain an "active"cemetery. The Cemetery's"active" period may be extended by the City. For example, the historical numbers may change over time; law permits cemetery owners to recover burial plots the have.been sold, but have not been used in a 60 year period, and re-sale them (this could add a few hundred graves to the inventory over time); law permits double deep burials, which means that one burial plot may be used for two burials; construction of mausoleums, which allow for burials to occur above ground in structures. From: Joyce, Everett Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 9:43 AM To: Graham, Rick Subject: Mt. Olivet Cemetery Rezone request by Rowland Hall St. Marks school !1 11 I\ Page 2 of 2 Importance: High Rick, Rowland Hall St. Marks School has requested the City to rezone 13 acres of OS zoned property that is part of the Mt. Olivet cemetery property with the federal restriction allowing only public cemetery use. Rezoning of the property would support Rowland Hall with the process to eliminate the restriction placed on the property by the Federal government and in the suture build an Upper and Middle School. I could use information relating to future cemetery needs within Salt Lake City and the impact of removing this property from the land use restriction for cemetery uses. A successful rezone and elimination of the land use restriction by Rowland Hall would likely lead to the loss of the Salt Lake City School football field for future cemetery use. I need to move this petition forward to the Planning Commission for action in October, which means I need to finalize my staff report by October 12, 2005. Everett 1 n/1 n/'nnc Page 1 of 1 Joyce, Everett From: Larson, Bradley Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 3:59 PM To: Joyce, Everett Subject: Petition#400-05-08// Master Plan Amendment and Petition 400-05-09 Zoning Amendment for Mt. Olivet Cemetery and Rowland Hall St. Mark's School Everett, The Fire Department has no objection to the above named zoning change request. Please note to the applicant that site plan approval for development(fire hydrant number and location, fire access roads)will require review and approval by our Office prior to building permit issuance. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Thank you. 'Brad La roo-w Deputy RAP&Mtw h -i' •Lt Laker City Rive/Department („J1 -799-4162 office/ 801 -550-0147 cell/ irradleey.la.roon@slov.caves Page 1 of 1 Joyce, Everett From: Garcia, Peggy Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 11:12 AM To: Joyce, Everett Cc: Niermeyer, Jeff; Stewart, Brad; Greenleaf, Karryn; Snelling, Jeff Subject: Petition#400-05-08 Master Plan Amendment and Petition 400-05-09 Zoning Amendment for Mt. Olivet Cemetery and Rowland Hall St. Mark's School Categories: Program/Policy Everett, Public Utilities has no issues with this proposed rezone request. At the time of proposed construction several issues must be addressed. For culinary and fire flow needs this property would be served by a six-inch water main in Sunnyside Avenue. Water system improvements may be necessary if this existing main can not meet the State and City's Fire Department fire flow requirements. A storm drain runs along the north side of this property. A minimum 30-foot easement will be required for the operation and maintenance of this facility. All future design and construction must conform to State, County, City and Public Utilities standards and ordinances and Salt Lake City Public Utilities General Notes. Please call if you have any questions. Peggy Garcia Contracts Supervisor Salt Lake City Public Utilities (801)483-6727 Page 1 of 1 Joyce, Everett From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:46 PM To: Joyce, Everett Cc: Young, Kevin; Smith, Craig; Butcher, Larry; Larson, Bradley; Stewart, Brad Subject: Pet 400-05-09 Categories: Program/Policy November 9, 2005 Everett Joyce, Planning Re: Petition—400-05-08 Master Plan Amendment and Petition 400-05-09 Zoning Amendment for Mt.Olivet Cemetery and Rowland Hall St Mark's School at 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue. The Division of Transportations review comments and recommendations are for approval as follows: The proposed site fronts on Sunnyside Avenue, an arterial class roadway with five lanes. There is also a proposed access to Gaurdsman Way, an arterial class roadway with four lanes. The traffic study Exhibit"H" a phase I preliminary study indicates a reasonable traffic review for the present data available and the indication of approximately 400 added trips generated. We look forward to a Phase II study when more accurate data is available to consider with the future conditions more in keeping with development at that time. Sincerely, Barry Walsh, Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Craig Smith, Engineering Larry Butcher, Permits Brads Larson, Fire Brad Stewart, Utilities File. Joyce, Everett From: Smith, JR Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:35 PM To: Joyce, Everett Cc: Tracy, James; Hathaway, Jason Subject: Petition#400-05-08 and#400-05-09 Zoning amendment for Olivet Cemetary and Rowland Hall/St. Marks School Categories: Program/Policy Everett, Concerns: 1. Traffic - Increased traffic in the area of 800 South and 1300 East during school year. While the expected increase is not dramatic in numbers the combination of East, The "U" and Rowland Hall all occurring at the same time could increase in needs of enforcement, accidents etc. A possible mitigation alternative would be adjustment of Rowland or East operation hours to spread out the traffic conerns. 2. Proximity - The proximity of the proposed location to East, especially where middle school aged students and high school aged students would mix, could potentially increase the risk of negative contacts. 3 . Neighborhood impact - The impact would be mostly to residential areas located south of Sunnyside. This would only be due to the substantial increase in this aged group traffic, mostly during lunchtime and after school hours. Question - Would Rowland Hall be an open or closed campus? i.e. If students were restricted to campus during lunchtime then impact to surrounding neighborhood should only be after school hours. East is presently an open campus during lunchtime. 4 . Resource officer - With only one resource officer being assigned to East any additional law enforcement needs would be from a normally assigned patrol officer. In this type of environment we have found that prevention at the earliest level and the ability to speak with students prior to any potential negative action usually prevents the negative action from occurring. Note: There has not been any significant negative interaction between East and Rowland Hall students in the past or presently that we are aware of. J.R. Smith SLCPD Community Action Team 1 Exhibit 6 Community Input a. Community Councils b. Support of Petition Request c. Opposed to Petition Request a. Community Councils James D. Webster 938 Military Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Everett Joyce, Principal Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division re: proposal to rezone Mount Olivet Cemetery open space Dear Everett, At the August 03, 2005 meeting of the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council a report from the Yalecrest Subcommittee on Mount Olivet initiated a motion regarding the current proposal by Rowland Hall St.Marks School to request a masterplan amendment to rezone a section of the Mount Olivet Cemetery from an open space zone to an institutional zone. The Yalecrest Neighborhood Council and the residents living near this subject property have over the past 15 years considered several proposals for use of this subject property for institutional use. We have always rejected an institutional zone on this section or any part of the Mount Olivet property. In the past, Rowland Hall has been a partner to one of these proposals and has been aware that the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council has worked diligently on the community level and the City planning and zoning level to assure that this property remain in the open space zone. The most recent proposal to change the use and zone on the subject property has required focused attention at several of our Yalecrest Neighborhood Council meetings from 2003 through 2005. In an effort to fully inform community participants of the nature of this specific proposal, the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council has had presenters speak to the matters of open space zoning, cemetery use as an open space use in an urban environment, as well as, the proposed zone change and,development of the land. To explore the issue further, a subcommittee was initiated to evaluate the proposal,contact residents near to the subject property, seek their input and to evaluate consequences of the proposal for the immediate area and the City as well. The subcommittee gave it's report at the August 03, 2005 meeting and initiated a motion on the matter. This motion passed on12-2 vote and seeks to firmly communicate our position. The motion is: "The Yalecrest Neighborhood Council supports the open space zoning of the Mount Olivet subject property and wants this area and all of ount Olivet to remain as an open space zone. The Yalecrest Neighborhood Council requests that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission and Salt Lake City elected officials reject the petition to amend the mastexplan. reject a zone change and that City officials maintain the open space zone." This is a subject property that is both historically unique and serves an important present and future use to our community. To process away a significant piece of open space property, as this section of Mount Olivet Cemetery is to our entire community, would be to send a loud and clear message to all Salt Lake City residents and those in bordering cities, that Salt Lake City lacks a consistent and reliable policy on protecting and preserving open space through the open space zone. Sincerely, Webster, Chair Yalecrest Neighborhood Council cc: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Mayor Ross Anderson Councilmember Dave Buhler Various Concerns Expressed by Members of YCNC Over the Past Few Years (prepared by Jim Webster, Chair of Yalecrest Neighborhood Council) Introduction-The Yalecrest Neighborhood Council was formed about 25 years ago for the purpose of ensuring a livable community. Our efforts have been generally focused on issues such as open space, recreational facilities and mitigation of traffic impacts. The degeneration of Miller Park and the inclusion of USFS and armory properties along Guardsman Way into the city's parks/open space master plan to were the primary motivations for the formulation of the council. Due to our efforts, the city appropriated money for the re-building of pathways and bridges for the Miller Park and Bird Refuge. The Steiner Aquatic Center, or first phase of the sports complex involved a 12-year fund- raising and design advocacy effort by Yalecrest residents. Community participation in the upgrading of Bonneville Glen, an LDS Church owned property adjacent to Miller Park was co-ordinated by the council. Additional ice sheets and other improvements to Steiner were spearheaded by the council, along with the upgrade of Guardsman Way. The reconfiguration of 1700 East for traffic calming, adding new stop signs and traffic mitigation efforts have also been accomplished by the council. Throughout our entire history, the open space between the armory property (currently occupied by the Carmen Pingree Autism School) and 1300 East has been one of our primary concerns. We advocated interim use of the property for soccer fields along with Ione Davis, one of the original City Council members. We supported Mr Hogle's proposal for an interim golf academy, and although we had some concerns regarding visual and noise impacts, we have supported the interim use of the property for East's football/track facility. On the other hand, we have consistently opposed proposals that contradict the original intent of the federal designation as open space, including those of the University of Utah and the more recent proposal by Rowland Hall St Mark's (RHSM). Institutional use is absolutely excluded by the Department of Defense's 1874 land allocation to Mt Olivet. The DOD agreement is consistent with Salt Lake City's current zoning ordinance. The residents of Yalecrest Neighborhood Council are opposed to a change in the open space zone. A very small minority of RHSM parents having a vested interest outside the common welfare of the neighborhood, parents who have never participated in prior meetings or community improvement efforts by the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council persist in an effort to change zoning that has already been upheld in courts as serving the best interests of our community. The following is a synopsis of the specific concerns expressed in Yalecrest meetings as regards the proposal to change the zoning for the Mt Olivet property to serve the needs of Rowland Hall St Marks' Schools: 1. There is no compelling need to consider any change to the original intent of DOD designation for this property for future cemetery expansion. To oppose the intent of original designation would not only demonstrate ingratitude for Federal co-operation in 1874, but also damage SLC's future ability to obtain federal open space lands for viable community purposes. The Yalecrest community fully accepts the need for cemetery use, the wisdom of the proponents of the 1874 agreement, and fully endorses the perpetual use of the property as designated. There is no compelling need to attempt by whatever political means as may be available to eradicate the reversionary clause in this agreement. If Mt Olivet cannot find a way to honor the original agreement to provide appropriate stewardship for the property, then other uses that are compatible with the 1874 agreement must be explored. This is the essence of the discussion as related to North Salt Lake's proposal to alter the intent of open space zoning. The primary function of Euclidian zoning is to ensure consistency and provide for the public welfare, not the self-serving interests of those with political influence. Page two 2. Yalecrest neighbors have attended meetings sponsored by RHSM and have carefully reviewed preliminary site plans for the middle and high schools on the 13 acres in question.. Recognized area standards for middle and high schools have been established by land planners as represented by the following sources: Koppleman and DeChiara, Planning Design Criteria, Van Nostrand Reinhold, N.Y., 1969: Jr. High School: 18-20 acres; Table 9-4,pg 182 High School: 32-34 acres; Table 9-5, pg 183 The Urban Land Institute, The Community Builders Handbook, ULI, Wash. D.C., 1968: Jr. High School: 20 acres; pg 161 High School: 40 acres; pg 161 Using these minimal standards from either source, RHSM would need 50 acres for both institutions; the maximum standard would require 60 acres, an increase of about 462 % over the land being made available by Mt Olivet. Based on the information presented by RHSM, the interior area of the proposed buildings is over 170% greater than the University of Utah's football practice facility. This represents totally irresponsible over-building and institutionalization of valued open space lands. Even if it were zoned institutional, the RHSM proposal would be over-built. 3. RHSM's track record has not been one of support for its Yalecrest neighbors - very limited help in opposition to the U of U football practice facility, limited participation in the funding or design of Guardsman Way, and a general failure to advocate viable community interests. Instead, problems and impacts generated by RHSM have been the continual source of discussions in our Yalecrest meetings. These include an unfortunate track record of traffic infractions such as double parking, a serious safety impact. Yalecrest residents wonder why has city ignored this problem to date? When RHSM parents pick up students, Guardsman Way is virtually grid-locked. One would imagine the Fire Department would have concerns. Why would the city endorse an increase in this detrimental behavior? 4. Opportunity costs include the not only the loss of open space, but also loss of wildlife habitat, tranquility, aquifer recharge, oxygen generation, temperature mitigation, and associated benefits provided to the urban environment by open space. We would encourage the Planning Commission to retain someone such as Ty Harrison of Westminster College to evaluate these impacts. 5. We are not convinced that storm water management issues have been fully addressed. This property has never been anticipated for intensive development nor has any such proposed land use been addressed by Public Utilities current master plan for infrastructure development. We are also concerned that SL County has not been consulted. The RHSM proposal anticipates covering the site with an enormous amount if impervious material and the generation of significant amounts of runoff polluted by hydro-carbons from roadways and parking areas. 6. We wonder if impacts on the sanitary sewer infrastructure have been adequately addressed. Is available line capacity sufficient for such an intensive development? 7. We have studied RHSM's traffic impact study and feel it is inordinately biased and must be balanced by a second opinion. This study failed to address the issue of double-parking, an ongoing impact that would only become even more intolerable if the zone were changed. Page three 8. There has been much discussion in our meetings that the Open Space zone could become merely a"holding pattern" until yet another more powerful lobby comes along to subvert the best interests of our community and the associated master planning process. This would be an terrible precedent. If such were to occur, many of us wonder why SLC can be so involved in the North Salt Lake issue and ignore needs of residents and wildlife in an established open space zone in our own city? 9. The placement of three high schools in close proximity is unprecedented, and in our opinion for appropriate reasons. We do not question that a rise in crime rate will occur as three competing student bodies are so closely mingled. We have discussed this issue with J.R. Smith of the Salt Lake City Police Department who alerted us that such an increase in crime would be unavoidable. The Planning Commission should require a detailed study of comparable circumstances as related to the incidence of crime, if anyone can find a precedent for three high schools with a half-mile radius. 10. We are very tired of hearing RHSM's threat that U will develop property if we don't endorse their proposal. We have the assurance of Charles Evans, Vice President of Real Estate at the University of Utah that this would not happen; the U would not be so presumptive as to ask for a US Congressional action to dissolve the 1874 agreement. While the U is not accountable to anyone at the Salt Lake City Planning Department and the U's football palace is an egregious structure, it is nevertheless smaller in absolute sq.ft. and less impacting in terms of percent of land covered as compared to the RHSM proposal. 11. Of concern to many residents is the migratory bird habitat currently afforded by Mt. Olivet's pond on Bureau of Reclamation property at the intersection of Guardsman and 500 South. The termination of secondary water use and conversion to culinary rights, which would only limit 50%of such right to be used for irrigation, if converted to a culinary source. Water in Red Butte and Emigration Creeks would be wasted to Great Salt Lake rather than being utilized as intended by the 1874 agreement. There is nothing wrong with existing distribution from the pond except the politics of SLC's Public Utility policy of garnering water rights for culinary use, a terribly inefficient policy as regards irrigation of open space lands. 12. RHSM has implied that there is some sort of"efficiency" associated with having all students of any given family on a common complex. We believe this to is fallacious. RHSM parents have clearly evidenced that they intend to perpetuate the over-use of gas guzzling, double-parked SUV's that would block even more local traffic. Adding teenage drivers to an already stressed out situation is all that would really occur. 13. Negative impacts of vacating the Roosevelt campus include blight, commercial land speculation, adverse land uses imposed on adjacent residential neighborhood due to an institutional zone status of being higher on pyramid than residential, thus limiting a potential for down-zone due to market value considerations. Would RHSM commit to voluntary down-zone and sell this land at residential value to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood? Does the city have any realistic way to manage this situation? In the opinion of many Yalecrest residents, RHSM is in the real estate speculation business. If the down-zone were to be approved and RHSM suddenly realizes that according to Urban Land Institute standards they cannot build the dream campus, then what would become of the Mt Olivet land purchase? The city would have simply opened Pandora's box. Some of us expect that RHSM would sell to the U. What irony. Page four 14. Yalecrest residents believe that the city must generate small area master plans for both the Roosevelt and Guardsman parcels. This must occur prior to any further consideration of re-zone. We believe any action at this point would be premature and ill advised. Have all other possible institutional zoned properties, including abandoned schools in the area been evaluated for use by RHSM? 15. Some neighbors have expressed concern that the mayor has advocated and sponsored an"open house" to promote RHSM's proposal prior to this public hearing process? We would have expected that the administration would have been equally concerned about the welfare of the neighborhood and supportive of a sustainable community concept by gaining input from Yalecrest residents. 16. Various residents have wondered why the need for a public cemetery is not a concern of the city. At the time of the DOD designation over 125 years ago, this need was anticipated. If this land is used for an alternate purpose, completely alien to original intent of the DOD designation, within a very few years Salt Lake City will become the only major city in the western US without a public cemetery. How does this serve to define sustainability? 17. Gary Russon, a member of our community has indicated that if Salt Lake City residents are forced to bury their relatives in private cemeteries, the increased cost impacts will be enormous and the private sector would be without any competition. The cost differential is at least$600.00. This is absolutely contrary to the intent of the 1874 designation in terms of access by the general community to a critical land use. 18. Mr. Russon and Yalecrest officers had met with Rick Graham and indicated these facts, along with efforts by himself and other morticians to acquire the Mt Olivet land for a cemetery, should the city not opt to acquire the land for such public use. In our public meetings, Mt Olivet's Board of Directors has denied having ever participated in these negotiations. The only motive we can imagine for such denial is the higher land value associated with an institutional zone than would otherwise be justified by the current open space designation. It all seems vary transparent to us. We are hopeful that the Planning Commission would not become a party to an arbitrary inflation of property values that do not serve the community interest or welfare. Any economic hardship alleged by Mt Olivet was created by Mt Olivet alone in its failure to provide appropriate stewardship for the land granted to Mt Olivet by the federal government for exclusive use as a cemetery. It is quite clear, this was germaine to the original land deal. 19. We have been in discussions with veterans who have a desire to be buried in a military cemetery near Fort Douglas, as the cemetery within the present boundaries of the fort itself is closed. When granting the property to Mt Olivet for cemetery use, the DOD obviously understood that accommodation of veterans has a much higher priority than use by a private school. There is no question of the current need for a veterans cemetery, or prioritized use by veterans of a public cemetery with respect to the original intent and spirit of the 1874 designation. In our view,three options are available: 1. Salt Lake City acquires the land for a public cemetery; 2. a veterans group is allowed to acquire the property for a veterans cemetery, possibly through enactment of the reversionary clause,; or 3. a private entity obtains the land for a private cemetery. Page five All three of these options would mandate respect for, and the perpetuation of the existing open space zone as is appropriate within the context of the 1874 agreement to serve the best interests of the Yalecrest community as an neighbor, and Salt Lake City in general. 20. Perpetuation of the cemetery use is economically viable. Mt Olivet will gain more from the long-term development of the land in question as a cemetery than the offered price from RHSM, if it is properly managed. This point has been raised in numerous meetings by Mr Russon and others familiar with the cemetery and real estate industries. There is no economic hardship, implied or real. 21. Many in our community have indicated that it is irresponsible to sell off open space for any reason, especially to create a false economic tax base. The only thing the wold be accomplished is an increase in the cost of open space and a limiting of the supply of available lands. 22. If RHSM's petition were to result in a zone change, it would become the "poster child"of special interests cajoling a terrible land planning policy for the sole benefit of a politically powerful, self-serving clique that has no interest in the general welfare of the adjoining community. This would indeed be an unfortunate precedent. The Yalecrest Neighborhood Council appreciates the responsibility that the Planning Commission has in sustaining the integrity of our neighborhoods. For the reasons outlined above, and for reasone that are being expressed in the public hearing forum,the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council opposes the proposed zone change. D. Webster, air Mt Olivet Issue- Additional Considerations All of the land at Mt Olivet(83.45 acres)has been zoned as perpetual open space by Salt Lake City. Permitted/conditional uses in this zone include a cemetery and East High's football/track facility (which has been leased for another approximately 60 years to the Salt Lake City School District). The open space zoning designation was challenged by Mt Olivet with the federal court ruled in favor of the city, respecting the original land grant by the federal government which has allowed Mt Olivet to utilize the property exclusively for public cemetery purposes. If Mt Olivet does not continue to use the land for a public cemetery it loses its stewardship status and the land would revert back to the federal government according to the Recreation and Public Purposes Act(R&PP)passed by the US Congress in 1874 which enabled Mt Olivet to gain access to the property. Mt Olivet has never been granted any ownership title by the federal government and ownership continues to reside with the citizens of the United States. Nevertheless, Mt Olivet has taken the unprecedented position that it actually does own the land and has been in the process of marketing 13.2 acres of"surplus property"to Rowland Hall for a high school, as if this stewardship board were some sort of land developer. Some parents of Rowland Hall students are very well connected in Washington(Jim Matheson's nieces and nephews attend this private school). Behind closed doors, these folks have been lobbying our Utah congressmen to reverse the purpose for which the federal government made the land available to Utah citizens as a public cemetery. To allow the land to be sold by Mt Olivet to a private interest would no longer serve the general public welfare. There is no reason for the use of the property to change, especially in light of the fact that Salt Lake City Cemetery is virtually filled to capacity and there are no other opportunities for residents to acquire public burial plots within Salt Lake City. The city is currently evaluating the feasibility of acquiring the property to perpetuate the specific intent of the federal government in granting of this land as a cemetery. This proposal is supported by numerous funeral homes as such public cemetery would offer plots for sale at a reasonable cost and the city would continue to provide this important public service. It was never the intention of the federal government to enable a private special interest to obtain this land. Indeed, the legislation that allowed Mt Olivet to gain stewardship is the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and for that reason, the reversionary clause was made part of the law. The middle/high school proposed by Rowland Hall would require a change to an institutional zone, along with a U.S. congressional modification of the R&PP enabling legislation that allowed Mt Olivet to gain use of the property in the late 19`h century. In response to Steiner's representations at an open house at the elementary school attended by neighboring residents the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council forwards the following observations for consideration by the Planning Commission: 1. There will be an 18% increase in traffic, according to Mr. Steiner. He said noting about the congestion at the close proximity of RHSM and Pingree Autism School's access points on Guardsman. This would probably be classified as "F"relative to freeway congestion, or gridlock. 2. The proposed middle/high school is 1.7 times larger than the Spence Eccles Fieldhouse, and probably larger than all the U athletic facilities along Guardsman(football office and weight room, and George Eccles Tennis Center. 3. Steiner believes a change in zoning is in the best interests of the city. The City Council's position on open space for North SLC is very clear. What compelling issues are there to base a change in this policy in SLC, especially as there is a public need for cemeteries? 4. What is this "endowment"Mr. Steiner speaks of and how is this any different than the commitment Mt Olivet made to the federal government in 1874? Would the feds have given them the ground if Mt Olivet were truthful at the time and had indicated that in 2005 they would no longer respect such a commitment to maintain the property as a cemetery? There is no "endowment" language in the 1874 agreement. Maintenance and stewardship were simply implicit in the deal from day one. 5. What plans are there for the Roosevelt (Lincoln Street) campus, when abandoned? Why does RHSM promote the likely creation of blight? In whose best interest is this failed policy? How does this help sustain a community? These questions were not addressed by Mr. Steiner. Mt. Olivet Land Fact Sheet Property generally known as Mt Olivet Cemetery consists of three parcels: A. 39.50 acres of developed burial plots (#16-04-353-001) in Section 4, or northern part of the cemetery along 500 South. B. 2.45 acres for the pond (#16-04-376-003), also in Section 4 to the north of the Eccles Tennis Center building. This land is owned by the US Bureau of Reclamation. C. 41.50 acres in Section 9 that extends down to Sunnyside Ave. This parcel includes some developed burial plots to the north, or interface with Section 4 along with the East High football field and track that Mt. Olivet leased to the SLC School District. The balance of the land in this third parcel is undeveloped open space. All of this Mt Olivet land(83.45 acres)has been zoned as perpetual open space by Salt Lake City. Permitted uses in this zone include a cemetery and the football/track facility. The middle/high school proposed by Rowland Hall would require a change to an institutional zone, along with a U.S. congressional modification of the R&PP enabling legislation that allowed Mt Olivet to gain use of the property in the 196 century. Some of the original landholding was taken for road right-of-ways at 500 South and Sunnyside. From Salt Lake County records, the following conclusions are apparent: 1. The 39.5 acre parcel to the north that includes the Sextant's office/residence, the pump house, various maintenance building and is entirely covered by developed cemetery plots has been valued by the Salt Lake County Assessor at $500, or $12.66/acre. Abstract records at the county indicate that this land has been subject to property tax in the past, and had been seized by the county for a period of time for non payment of property taxes. 2. The land covered by and surrounding the pond(2.45 acres) is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The Assessor has assigned a land value of$298,800, or$121,960/acre. 3. The 41.5 acre parcel in Section 9 which includes the East football/track facility, some burial plots, and the vacant land in question has been appraised at$353,400, or$8,516/acre. 4. Salt Lake County Recorder's office does not have legal descriptions for any subdivision of land for the three separate land uses that currently occur on the Section 9 parcel. If Mt Olivet were to "sell" any portion of this land, such would constitute an illegal subdivision. It is not possible for Mt. Olivet,having a limited right to use agreement with the federal government to legally subdivide land for separate ownership under current SLC ordinances. 5. The frontage along Sunnyside is 1,426.13', including the football/track facility. 6. The relationship between Mt. Olivet and the Bureau of Reclamation is not defined by Salt Lake County records, but the pond is used for irrigation water storage and could not be sold under any condition by Mt. Olivet as it has no claim to the ground other than a possible right to use agreement with the federal government. The East Bench Fault runs through the Mt. Olivet property. Two maps, available from the book store (map room) of the Utah Geological Survey (located at the Department of Natural Resources building, 1594 W. North Temple), indicate the occurrence of the fault passing through the property from the irrigation pond at Guardsman Way and 500 South and diagonally toward the southwest toward the East High football stadium. With this type of generalized mapping is that there always is a seismic fault, often having over 2-3 feet of differential settlement, but that the actual location can only be determined by cross-trenching, in most cased down to 12' deep. The two studies and maps are: I-1762 by Van Horn and Crittenden which is more detailed to the north side of Sunnyside; and I-2106 by Personius and Scott. If copies of these maps are desired, go to the sales counter of the map room, or Book Store and request these identification numbers. We need an objective discussion of seismic issues and make certain an adequate study is conducted. Page two The sale of any portion of the property would also require a subdivision amendment if SLC ordinances are applicable. If not, why? If the city determines that an illegal subdivision would otherwise occur, what will it do to require compliance? If the city goes through a standard subdivision amendment process, notices would be sent to adjoining property owners. If anyone voices concern, the issue would then be placed on a Planning Commission agenda for a public hearing. A letter from the City Attorney and Planning Director relative to the applicability of city ordinances is appropriate, prior to any further discussion of a zone change. 14, East Central Community Council August 02, 2005 Mr.Everett Joyce Salt Lake City Planning Department 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Dear Everett, At the May 18,2005 meeting of the Fast Central Community Council Executive Committee,issues related to the Mt.Olivet Cemetery and the Open Space Zone were an important part of the agenda. By a unanimous vote,the Committee reached a decision in response to these issues and I am writing this letter to clearly communicate our motion which is, "To strongly recommend that the City protect and preserve the curent open space zone of the south east section of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery. That the Planning Department.the Planning Commission and the City Council reject the petition by Rowland Hall St.Marks to amend the Master Plan for a rezone to institutional zoning of the south east portion of land that is currently Mt.Olivet Cemetery." The following points led to this motion which was passed by every member of the Executive Committee present that evening.We ask you to seriously consider each of them for their importance: *the absolute irreplaceability of this open space land which is Mt.Olivet Cemetery to the densely developed central and eastern area of Salt Lake City * the critical need regarding the planning for cemetery space in Salt Lake City for future generations *the historical value of its original use as enacted by the United States Congress *the ecological value of its natural state in regards to wildlife *the livability value for a community that is overly impacted by institutional development * the need for Salt Lake City to protect different types of open spaces *the important planning value of the Open Space Zone to stop the threat of institutional and other development interests from encroaching on zoned open space land. The Executive Committee of the East Central Community Council,comprised of the chairs of the Neighborhood Councils and the officers of Fast Central Community Council,are unanimous in their position of maintaining the present open space zoning of the Mt.Olivet property. Sin ely, Dennis Guy-Sell Chair,Fast Central Community Council 436 South 1200 East 582-0383 cc Salt Lake City Council Mayor Ross Anderson Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 29, 2005 Mr. Everett Joyce Salt Lake City Planning Department 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Everett: At the June meeting of the Wasatch Hollow Community Council (WHCC), a motion was passed by acclamation to support denial of the rezone to institutional zoning request, by Rowland Hall St. Mark's school, of the southeast portion of land that is currently Mt. Olivet cemetery. There is a critical need regarding planning for cemetery space. As the Salt Lake City Cemetery nears capacity, the city will need this land for its intended purpose as a public use cemetery. Of equal importance, the implications of changing an open space zone to an institutional zone are profound. If this change to the ordinance is allowed, then open space throughout the city will be vulnerable to rezoning pressures. As concerned citizens, we urge you to make every effort to assure that the protection and preservation of open space be assured. Reject the petition to rezone any part of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery from open space to institutional zoning. Thank you. TY) etilitz, , c Mary Delle Gunn Chair, Wasatch Hollow Community Council 463-1679 CC: Planning Commission Jill Remington-Love Mayor Rocky Anderson Bonneville Hills Community Council 2177 Roosevelt Ave Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 (801) 581-0369 August 6, 2005 Everett Joyce Community Planning Land Use & Transportation City of Salt Lake Dear Everett, This letter is written on behalf of Bonneville Hills Community Council Executive Board to recommend that Salt Lake City Planning, the Planning Commission and the City Council preserve and protect the OS Zone for the SE corner of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery. We want to included a motion to protect the property and also recommend the rejection of the petition for an East Bench Masterplan amendment and zone change for institutional use on the Mt. Olivet property. This is irreplaceable open space and should be treated as such. Sincerely, Ellen Reddick Chair f-\-p 0 D�L\V E1 August 09, 2005 Everett Joyce, Principal Planner Salt Lake City Planning Department Salt Lake City, UT, 84111 Dear Mr. Joyce Since March of 2005 I have served as the Chair of the Mt. Olivet Subcommittee for the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council. We have requested and recleved input from all but one resident living on Sunnyside Avenue, 1400 East and Amanda Avenue with respect to our committee's recommendations regarding the request by Rowland Hall St. Mark School to rezone part of the cemetery from open space to an institutional zone, The proposal, as we understand it, is to amend and rezone to institutional zoning so that they may build a junior high school and a high school on what is now open space cemetery property. We would like you to know that our subcommittee unanimously supports the continuation of the open space zone. In addition we unanimously recommend that the petition to rezone a section of Mount Olivet property for institutional or other use be rejected, On August 03, 2005 we reported our recommendations and requests to the full Yalecrest Neighborhood Council. At that time a motion was made and passed by the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council recommending that the City and Public Elected Officials uphold the current open space zoning on the property. Furthermore, we recommend the petition for a masterplan amendment and rezone to an institutional zone be rejected. Our Council Chair, Jim Webster will send you an official letter regarding this motion. For more than 15 years the neighbors of this area have counted on the fact that the City would support open space use of this property. To date, City officials working with Federal Legislators have supported and upheld open space uses and zoning on this land. My neighbors and I completely enjoy the open field in its current state and we have no objections to the way it looks. It serves as an important respite in our area. There is no glaring light pollution coming from the property, no loud noises, no noises being emmited from building heating, ventilation and cooling systems, no noise from lawn mowing and weed whacking, no pollution from herbicides and pesticides, and there is no noise and pollution from the addition of automobiles. This neighborhood sees, experiences and enjoys this property in its current natural state. It is a quiet place where one can observe nature, take a walk, enjoy a beautiful sunset. The field gives us an unobstructed view of the mountains from our living rooms and front yards. The residents on Sunnyside appreciate this open land and we have always looked forward to the future use of this property as a cemetery. This is exactly the type of quiet and passive open space we desperately need in this neighborhood. Despite the many years that the City has supported preserving this open space, local residents, including myself, are greatly concerned about the Citys' will to uphold the open space that doesnoare t se�vecn neighborho that oty d orfficials City interests.ill be convinced of a project At a Yalecerest meeting and at an open house, we heard presentations by representatives of Rowland Hall who advanced the specious notion that by installing a few soccer fields and then putting buildings and parking lots on the rest of the land we would see a gain of open space for our neighborhood and Salt Lake City. It Is either the fool, or perhaps those who would mislead by political advantage, who believes the proposition that by advancing the development of buildings and a parking lot and then adding in a few play fields, our community will have a gain in open space. Mr. Joyce, we are not so easily fooled and hope others involved in the process will not be either. Obviously, if this is really an open space plan, as ph and they caninsta play fieldswhic, then we can all h live with the a e an allowed current open space zone feature in the open space zone. Our neighborhood would like the properd for the directed puto remain zoned ren pose se of the federal ace and eventually would like to see this land e legislation, the public burial of the dead. While the neighborhood remains hopeful that our open space planning system will prevail again on this property, I have concerns that politics are not in our favor. Based on my concern, I request that you answer specific questions I have regarding the proposal and impacts it would have on our neighborhood. 1 . What is the foot print of the proposed junior high and high school? 2. Salt Lake City District averages approximately 100, 000 square feet of building space for student populations of 800 students. How does the developers proposal for Rowland Hall compare with Salt Lake City School District? 3, What is the building square footage for this proposal? 4. Based on the proposed footprint area presented by RHSM, how many stories is the proposed building? 5. How many acres of play area are dedicated in this proposal? 6, Is a stadium area planned? Is there a public address system in the plan? 7. Any additional lighting in the area will impose a great field lightinglitis pollution on the adjacent neighborhood, what type planned and permitted, how many lights are proposed for the entire plan, and how many lights are planned to be attached to the building? 8, What type of lighting is planned for the parking area, how many lights are planned for in the parking areas? 9. An added impact to be considered for the neighborhood is noise from high school extracurricular activities, The noise from East High School activities, including speakers from the stadium and music used in after school training of cheerleaders, track and field, soccer, etc., extend as far South as 1400 S. and as far East as 1800 E.. This added noise can occur from 7:00 AM to 10:30 PM. Typically, high schools have extended hours far exceeding those of neighborhood businesses. Realistically, a standard high school day usually extends from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Please comment on how noise impacts and the cumulative noise impact of two high schools side by side are being considered when examining this proposal. 10. In this neighborhood we have already seen several East High School students hit by vehicles while attending after school events. It has been reported that an 18%increase in traffic will occur in the morning and afternoon because of this proposal. However it has not been noted that the sun in the eastern sky prohibts driver sight in the morning and the sun in the western sky in the evening blinds drivers as well, How many vehicles travel on Sunnyside between 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 am. and then from 3:00 PM and 9:00 PM on weekdays? 11 . The proposal mentions that in addition to the junior high and high school students who attend RHSM, the soccer and school field areas will be used by public groups. Who are the after school user groups for the proposed facility? Is RHSM proposing to allow organized leagues to use the facility? How are the impacts of these additional groups being considered? 12. How much traffic will extracurricular RHSM school activities generate? Specific activities might include, dances, fine arts productions, sports activities, debate, fund raisers, etc.., 13. At a Yalecrest Neighborhood Council meeting last fall, a representative of RHSM, Bob Steiner, said that they don't plan on building a school for 10 to 50 years. Based on discussions at the Yalecrest meetings, it is my understanding that play fields are allowed in the current zone and it is also my understanding that what RHSM wants to build now are play fields. Why would the city consider changing the zoning now when we don't even know for sure if RHSM will ever build a school there? If the City allows a zone change, and there is no plan for a school for up to half a century, could RHSM sell the land to another party? Could it then be used for other types of institutional uses? If yes, what are the other types of institutional uses besides schools that could be built if _ there is a zone change and the land changes owners? 14. It is an atypical situation for a city to allow junior high schools and high schools to be built next to each other. The reason for this is that there are serious social consequences and public safety concerns for youth and citizens when these uses are in close proximity. Putting junior high school students in an area with about 3,000 high school students provides a greater opportunity for bullying. In the past several years t there has been an increasing incidence of bullying of certain students at reported at EHS. There will be a greater chance of young students engaging in destructive activities such as drug use, which is more common among high schoolers. As well, placing high school youth from different schools so close to eachother provides an easy opportuntiy for the cross pollination of antisocial activities such as underage drinking, drug sale, abuse and auto and home theifs. There is always the concern of assault of students by students from different high schools. These are very serious public safety concerns for those living in the area and should be for police and educators. While these schools may not have a long standing rivalry, I believe that by placing these schools so close you will be inviting opportunity for social and public safety issues. This is a legitimate matter and placing these schools so close to one another will not demonstrate a pro-social decision for youth or a demonstration or crime prevention through good planning. I would appreciate your thoughts on this important youth and neighborhood safety concern. Lastly, because this is a proposal, I would like to know if it succeeds through the public process, is the developer required to build as proposed or could they reconfigure the project so that the schools would be closer to the neighborhood? Sincerely, Steve Mason Chair, Mt. Olivet Subcommittee, Yalecrest Neighborhood Council 1428 East Sunnyside Ave. Salt Lake City, Ut. 84105 703-3293 cc: James Webster,Chair Yalecrest Neighborhood Council CouncilmemberJill Remington-Love Councilmember Dave Buhler b. Support of Petition Request Joyce, Everett From: RedPC33@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:08 PM To: Council Comments Subject: Mt. Olivet Property Council members please consider allowing Rowland Hall St. mark's school to purchase and develop the Mt. Olivet property. It is an eysore now and eventually RHSM would build a lovely school and playing fields (preserving green space) that could be used by the community. Thanks you for this condideration. Pamela Stone 931 Windsor St. SLc 84105 1 Message Page 1 of 1 Joyce, Everett From: Zach [zahamptonl@networld.com] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:43 PM To: Council Comments Subject: Mt. Olivet land - Rowland Hall Bid To whom it may concern; I'm writing to express my feelings in the matter of the bid by Rowland Hall St. Mark's to buy the land currently owned by Mt. Olivet. RHSM has been nothing but a good neighbor and an upstanding member of this community since its founding 125 years ago. The longevity has concreted the school's reputation in the community and the it is a good one. RHSM is a responsible institution. The school has a policy of being environmentally and socially responsible. It has proven this in all of the community service work it's performed and by vowing to maintain as much green space as possible at the proposed site. The McCarfheycarnpus it recently built on Guardsman Way is proof that it can avoid being an eyesore, and the effects the new campus would have on traffic would be negligible (survey performed by Fehr& Peers, Jan 2005). RHSM will not impose any unwanted irritation upon its neighbors such as lighted fields or loud PA systems. It seeks only to peacefully coexist with its neighbors while providing the best education possible. Sincerely, Zach Hampton Midvale, UT 518-4024 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338/Virus Database: 267.10.13/78-Release Date: 8/19/2005 ni�c c Joyce, Everett From: Hardman, Ellie Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 1:34 PM To: Bruno, Jennifer; Jardine, Janice; Buhler, Dave; Christensen, Carlton; Jergensen, Eric; Lambert, Dale; Love, Jill; Saxton, Nancy; Turner,Van Cc: Joyce, Everett; Gust-Jenson, Cindy; Hardman, Ellie; Harvey, Marge; Aramaki, Jan; Jones, Sylvia; Mascaro, Mary; Mumford, Gary; Pacheco, Vicki; Weaver, Lehua Subject: Council comments email: Mt Olivet Property Categories: Program/Policy Dodi and Isaac Wilson write "I believe they have a stable, well thought out plan and one that would highly increase the beauty of that land. " Original Message From: Hardman, Ellie Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 1:29 PM To: 'Isaac Wilson' Subject: RE: Mt Olivet Property Thank you for contacting the Salt Lake City Council office. Your comments have been forwarded to each Council Member. Original Message From: Isaac Wilson (mailto:isaacwilson@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 1:25 PM To: Council Comments Subject: Mt Olivet Property Hello, I am aware that you are taking comments from concerned neighbors concerning Rowland Hall taking over the land known as Mt. Olivet Property. I am highly in favor of the school taking it over. I believe they have a stable, well thought out plan and one that would highly increase the beauty of that land that is now an eyesore! Thank you for your time, Dodi and Isaac Wilson 1 Page 1 of 1 Joyce, Everett From: Hardman, Ellie Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9:57 AM To: BRET JACKSON Subject: RE: Mt. Olivet property Thank you for contacting the Salt Lake City Council. Your comments have been forwarded to each Council Member. From: BRET JACKSON [mailto:bandnjackson©msn.com] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 3:42 PM To: Council Comments Subject: Mt. Olivet property We would like to voice our support for the development of Mt. Olivet by the Rowland Hall School. We are excitd for this ecologically minded community to take over the property, and feel excited about what they will do for the space. Please contact us for further questions or conerns. Thank you. The Jackson family 2566 Highland Dr. Salt Lake City, UT 84106 801-466-9224 Joyce, Everett From: Hardman, Ellie Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9:57 AM To: Sarah Reeves Subject: RE: Rowland Hall St. Mark's property bid Thank you for contacting the Salt Lake City Council. Your comments have been forwarded to each Council Member. Original Message From: Sarah Reeves [mailto:sarahscienceteacher@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:02 PM To: Council Comments Subject: Rowland Hall St. Mark's property bid To Whom It May Concern: My name is Sarah Reeves, and I am writing to let you know of my support for the RHSM f ad project on bde. As a to the SaltmLakeer oCityearea. The,recentl that McCarthysM has campusmisea manyau positiveudcontributionsin of their plans to extend the beautiful addition to the area, and I am very supportiverrently an campusand build a middle thatschool, Rowlandhigh HallcStolMark's, and ghasnplanseto make. The lthe land is uaccessible eyesore, and I believe to the entire community. Thank you for your time, I hope you vote to approve the Rowland Hall St. Mark's bid and building plans. Sincerely, Sarah Reeves Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee° Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 1 i . I I i' ' • • ..I ' i , , .' I t j 1• I • From:; `'Boyd W illiam Bu lough: • • i • ` I To: 'Dave=Buhler ; • ' ' • • Reg , Rowland"Hall Purchase•of.Mt.�Olivet Property '' I , s • ..-:".:.:.• .I'.,�. .' 'AS a•resident of this commumty;for.;over;30.years, ihaoe l +ays;lcnown Rb wIaind-Hall Ih� •• ' '' , t and;ifs studnts• -to be good pe b•ars •• t l oft tliei id,tq clia a.the Mt Ql'. I.1. ' .a • '� .,j- , � opert.'+�''foi'°a•. w_liigh scho l': Lbelie reii ' s`ape ect�fit`Mr, scha�al;. id an ,•. _ • c. '•! excellent use of•the land for.the nexgliborbood. ', :+ 3 ''i t' '• -1 I . -.I t 1 • 1 'I'. J 1- 1 1 , I • •t II • e 1 I I I 1• ; 1 , I I i I 1 I ;1 • I 1, _ I • • • HI Bo am:Bullbugh, :B:A , 2039 Aldo,Circle. • 'I • Salt i alre•City,UT 184108 ' • • • ' 801=994f970' • 7 ! 1 }I� F • 4i 1 I `I •,. r !• ;( I . '1 ']'t'' I `' 'Y 1 rt I '`__ `f i � T • 1 1 .I .I I '' • j 4 1 ', • I{ I II I I I I' 1 . 1' I .I Joyce, Everett From: Hardman, Ellie Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:21 AM To: Joyce, Everett; Jardine, Janice; Buhler, Dave; Christensen, Carlton; Jergensen, Eric; Lambert, Dale; Love, Jill; Saxton, Nancy; Turner,Van Cc: Gust-Jenson, Cindy; Hardman, Ellie; Harvey, Marge; Aramaki, Jan; Jones, Sylvia; Mascaro, Mary; Mumford, Gary; Pacheco, Vicki; Weaver, Lehua Subject: Council comments email: support for RHSM Mt. Olivet land rezoning Categories: Program/Policy Original Message From: Hardman, Ellie Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:20 AM To: 'Scott Osterloh' Subject: RE: RHSM Mt. Olivet land rezoning Thank you for contacting the Salt Lake City Council. Your comments have been forwarded to each Council Member. Original Message From: Scott Osterloh [mailto:scottosterloh@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3_32 PM To: Council Comments Subject: RHSM Mt. Olivet land rezoning Hi, As a life long resident of Salt Lake City, and a former graduate of Rowland Hall-St. Marks School, I would like to voice my support for the school's application for rezoning and amendment of the Open Space Master Plan for the 13.2 acres of land the Mt. Olivet Association is selling. Thank you! -Scott Osterloh 2073 Bryan Avenue 1 j L. SEP 1 3 2005 September 5,2005 , Councilwoman Jill Remington Love , 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE:Mt. Olivet property Dear Councilwoman Remington Love, We are keenly in favor of Rowland,Han St.Marks:School purchasing the Mt. Olivet property;They,;. ' : -= have recently filed a,rlequest to:change the zoning to'Institutional'and amend the Salt Lake City ,. .k _, ', Me.' rPlan,.Botts:of.whicltare.necessaryfor:.Rowland:HaittodrasticallyImprovelthe'13:2acres: `• ; .. Currently,•tniS land lays fallow and is situated behind.an.old tall chain link fence.The northern portion of the;,property is';becorning,:more•and more unsightly because it Is used as a dumping ground for brush:The property,_cannot be currently:used and is unattractive.Rowland'Hall's plans ' . for the property are fabulous The footprint ofthe:planned buildings only takes one-third.of the ' northern portion;of the property, leaving the remaining two-thirds GREEN with soccer fields and open The s,ace would be Similarly des ned.to Rowland Hall's existingbuildings on open ..p riY i9 g GuaridsmanWei_which:,tiouse its Beginning School and Lower School. Rowland Hall has been,continues to be,and in the future will be an excellent neighbor.The new soccer,1teld,couid be used by soccer leagues and informally.The aesthetics of the property will be Improved dramatically.Also,the property would be improved according to the Salt Lake City Open ; Space Master.Plan that calls for a Transvalley Corridor at NO COST to the City. Rowland Hall will • share the property with immediate neighbors,the.City of.Salt Lake,and will be a fabulous asset to Salt Lake City. The Mt,Olivet Cemeteryessociation must sell this property to enable the association to provide 1_ ; - perpetual care for the c uirenti .d'eveloped.portion of th{e.Cernetery. If the land were sold to : ,�'-.:::•� someoneelse,our.biggest fear;as�neighbors,SS'formeri�Rowland Hall parents,and a Rowland ' . ._.Hall:.faettlty.niiember,is:that a large;Univemttrof fteh building or a mausolerirrfor even a shopping::. _'. center or Walmart would be built on the property,.Rowland Hall is the best buyer for the property. The.crty and rtnmediateneighborhood will benefit as Rowland;Hall has proved to be a good neighbor,will build aesthetically;pleasing buildings,`trnprovethe green space,and possibly t;,, increase residential property values and thus;build a stronger tax base for the city. Rowland Hail's Guardsman campus.-iS,our.neighbor Rowland Hell's purchase of the property is,a win,w{n situation: VG IT y;yours , A i, .. {i✓`�;L{ .1-. .- � �. ,. :.. r cc Kim and Stan auH� 1780 E,�Hert rt;Avenye,.,.; , Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Joyce, Everett From: Hardman, Ellie Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:02 PM To: Joyce, Everett; Jardine, Janice; Buhler, Dave; Christensen, Carlton; Jergensen, Eric; Lambert, Dale; Love, Jill; Saxton, Nancy;Turner,Van Cc: Gust-Jenson, Cindy; Hardman, Ellie; Harvey, Marge; Aramaki, Jan; Jones, Sylvia; Mascaro, Mary; Mumford, Gary; Pacheco, Vicki; Weaver, Lehua Subject: council comments email: support for Mt. Olivet property Categories: Program/Policy Original Message From: Trace BROWNING (mailto:tracebrowning®msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:05 AM To: Council Comments Subject: Mt. Olivet property To the city council, I am writing to St.eMark's School. It of the believe itvwouldebe the the besttuse Olivet thisproperty by xpress my area. Thank you, Trace Browning Midvale, Utah 1 Joyce, Everett From: Becky Hall [bookyhall@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 10:09 PM To: Council Comments Subject: Mount Olivet Cemetary Dear Council members, I live at 1328 East 600 South. My home backs up to the Mount Olivet cemetery. My husband and I walk in our neighborhood all the time. I would far rather have Rowland Hall- St. Mark's School build a another campus of their beautiful buildings than to have the current mess of dead trees and old plastic flower pots. I prefer the school over the other alternative which appears to be a University of Utah parking lot. Therefore, I encourage you to let the school use the property. I have seen their plans and I think the school would be a desirable addition to our neighborhood. Sincerely, Rebecca F. Hall 1 Page 1 of 1 Joyce, Everett From: Jim Smith [casino21@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 1:13 PM To: Council Comments We are writing to recommend that you allow Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School to build a new middle and upper school on the property adjacent to the new lower campus on Guardsman Way. We live on 1349 Princeton Avenue and feel that this would be a wonderful addition to the atmosphere and quality of our neighborhood community. We also believe that a school such a RHSM would fit in well with the surrounding facilities, and the architecture and maintenance of the grounds would add to the asethtics of the area. We strongly urge you to allow RHSM to purchase and build on this property. Sincerely, Eve and Jim Smith Homeowners, 593-9000. 4 n in A innnL c. Opposed to Petition Request Barbara R. Cook 851 South 1400 East Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Phone 801-581-9917 June 23, 2005 Everett Joyce Salt Lake City Planning Department 451 South State St. Salt Lake City, UT 54111 Dear Mr. Joyce, I am writing to ask you to reject the petition to change the zoning on the Mt. Olivet property on Sunnyside from open space to institutional. I live on the corner of Sunnyside and 1400 East and am surrounded by the issues that attend a high school with 2300 students in your neighborhood. For years we have tried to keep this land from more buildings and the resulting problems that occur. The city has gone to court once with Mayor Coridini's help to preserve this as open space. The Rowland Hall St. Mark's proposal claims that they will put in soccer fields that will be open space. There is a soccer field at East High School and two soccer fields at Sunnyside Park. These fields bring parking issues to our neighborhood. We do not need more soccer fields in our immediate area. The issue of soccer fields as open space is to get the change to allow them to build their high school. Please consider what the neighbors face with two high schools adjacent to one another. Conflicts between rival schools, traffic issues, lighting,public sound systems,parking, additional black top all are presently issues in our neighborhood. We do not want more of this. We have issues with many institutions adjacent to this land such as East High School,the University of Utah, the Carmen B. Pingree School, and Rowland Hall St. Mark's Elementary School. We feel enough is enough. We would hope to preserve our environment on this land. We frequently see deer grazing there. There are water issues. This is an area of peace and quiet. We have surveyed our neighbors and the majority of them have strong opinions that oppose this zoning change. We hope you will consider our needs and turn town the petition for a change. Thank you kindly for your consideration. You're truly, , 0 ,‹ Barbara R. Cook 851 Amanda Avenue Salt Lake City,Utah84105 June 26, 2005 Mr. Everett Joyce, Staff Planner City Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Rezoning of Mt.Olivett Cemetery Property Dear Mr. Joyce: I live on the corner of Amanda Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue, directly opposite the ground which is under consideration for rezoning. I am writing to you because I am very concerned that this property may be rezoned for something other than the open use for which it is currently zoned. I ask that you do not rezone this land, any of it, and that it be retained as open use ground as it was originally intended, and certainly that it not be rezoned for institutional use. If you will look at the two block area from 13`h East to Guardsman Way you will see that we have one high school,plus its tennis courts and football field, a large church,the Pingree School and Rowland Hall, and on the northern end of that block the University buildings. Quite a dense two blocks. Rowland Hall indicates that if the rezoning is granted,they will put in two soccer fields. We already have three soccer fields in the ara, one at East High and two in Sunnyside Park. At one of the soccer games at Sunnyside Park there were 75 cars of people attedning the games. Rowland Hall representatives said at a recent community meeting that if the rezoring was granted and they did build a middle school and ANOTHER high school, it would only increase the traffic on Sunnyside Avenue by 19% Think how that will effect residents living on Summyside who already have a hard time backing out of their driveways.! It is important to note that the City has already gone to court on this issue and at that time prevailed in keeping this land as open space. I ask that you give serious consideration to this matter and decide not to change the ground from open space to any other zoning. Sincerely, Alice Andersen cc. Senator Orrin Hatch Senator Robert F,Bennett Mr. David Buhler Mayor R. Anderson Salt Lake City Planning Council Members Joyce, Everett From: johnnorman [johnnorman@jdchs.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 9:45 AM To: Joyce, Everett Subject: Mt. Olivet I feel strongly that the parcel of land that is presently zoned as open space adjacent to Mt. Olivet Cemetery remain zoned for that intended use. It would be foolish to lose that intended use as cemetery space for the future of our city. There should be no change in zoning considered. Please pass my comments to the Planning Commission. The Rev. John E. Norman 1044 East 600 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Pastor, Immaculate Conception Church, Copperton, Utah Faculty, Juan Diego Catholic High School, Draper, Utah 1 Robin A. Carbaugh 1428 East Sunnyside Avenue Salt Lake City,Utah 84105 July 01, 2005 Mr.Everett Joyce Salt Lake City Planning Department 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE: Mount Olivet Cemetery Dear Mr.Joyce Enclosed is a copy of a petition delivered to Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members regarding the preservation of the open space zone of land belonging to the Mount Olivet Cemetery Association and generally located in the southeast portion of the Cemetery running along Sunnyside Avenue. In a June 7, 1997 letter to Senator Hatch regarding the subject property, Mayor Coiradini said "Salt Lake City has always acknowledged the existing and future cemetery use as being consistent with the City's increasing need to protect open space." Accordingly, it has long been the desire of our neighborhood community to support the open space zone for this property. The signers of the attached petition concur that the property must remain zoned open space and the highest and best use of this property is the preservation of the land for future cemetery use and/or unprogrammed open space, For all of Salt Lake City's present and future needs, this property must remain in the open space zone. We are greatly concerned with the petition to change this zone from open space to an institutional zone submitted by a developer, Rowland Hall St. Marks School along with the Cemetery Association. We urge you, along with our elected officials and members of the Planning Commission to consider important facts regarding this property and urge you to reject the request for a masterplan amendment and rezone from open space to institutional on this subject property. Please consider that this historical property is the only federally deeded cemetery in the United States and has been deeded for the sole purpose of public use for the burial of the dead. As the Salt Lake City Cemetery nears a state of capacity, we as a city will absolutely need this land for its intended purpose as a public use cemetery. Of utmost importance are facts such as the 1997 District Court ruling and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding Salt Lake City's open space zoning control on this exact property. As well, consider the message to all residents and potential developers of changing a protected open space zone to an institutional zone. Certainly, the open space zone must mean more than landbanking for future development. Our need for passive urban ecological zones is an areas that is rarely considered in our City's planning efforts, but it is now time for planners, elected officials and citizens alike to take account of this factor as a priority for our increasingly urbanizing area and preserve this land for its unprogrammed ecological value. The implications of changing an historic open space zone to an institutional zone are profound. As concerned citizens we urge you to make every effort to assure that the protection and preservation of this land as open space be assured. Reject the petition to rezone any part of the Mount Olivet Cemetery from open space to institutional. Since , Ro in A. C baugh cc: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Salt Lake City Council Mayor Anderson James Webster co • O c� • o v Ob O � v ,, cl .a 6 c,_, b O 14 •.., z Uv -, v ° vE-, " v p-+ a, O 0 v L v Lp ^ . qU U ' ,1 ct ctS to v v bA I., " R _,, v tQ' v 'v " Z, q 4. O 'a •� 0 •" ty,. ' g 4 �.., a O v TS q --, v ,5 q can 4 tz,, ° v° . q v " cl bt ' a, ,� U � Otx, tki " "1v41 41 v = v .a s tn oo � 1, :. Q, s'+ �' cn , ~ " . U v �V q) — a v 0 �+No v OU U VI v ctt i 'L1 q ; O 'ZS 'q v �• CU CU 'Zi ° cvn v a 'la v 0q v v `+`' +-, O O U ,1 Z O O+ qbA v 'Z3 c C'I " O • sj O Li v .r v qv 4"9 C.v la °. ° v a4, cta' a`) Q) a) q v Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email 1. ,Navy p. Cook �u use S IL/ sal- 6/9/7 2. L� 'io‘CIAen56A ,1rtitk)11\('(; lov ,,,,r1 ,l\',,, ,i,,. {. ;tl / r [ ,S�3 yxa/ 4. e'/.//G , o 7,.) e ti �' ?0 141/4 06 S C' l 0 'Z E. 6. tiiin ri c%eS °) 7. OL , . 6/205.6 ,L€ '11,�a / ->y5i .,,z)Js-Joer 1711,"ESLe 7/7,-, .5 ��s.7f.6-7/ 8. (4/CO2-Y/V 6i?o5L ( L2G ,x--/4-i., ;,ova.1kx-„.,{,,,(Gvr...I.r? 7%, iiiv,- je1-4��i/ 9. c-5Lulanne FAL/I y x4---3— ) fi-`Y,(,, L . )i111d1-K.,vcle-."- & / S— SY?--6Ik7 10. ;,4,6t- Ai�c-"- ^.� ih - /"' 7.1Z_,,, lr ;' _ L-�- it ,6-23 -gm Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and/or registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) //Signature Address Phone Email 1. Girlie// Cig44 .c%iineff1-715'./hoc 5f/-9i5-c• 2. .; 4't �L J. �Zi?2i CCti1 t.)LI ve,'xr, `E- 7S 5z; .1`ifCc-3,7 JY-3e`777 4. \v 1kek a I•- -- '\�11N (/{/,„,.,L ,i,i,iJ/t() '\(L /� ( I E °/t)O>_ S. 1.-e("l ci-I - 5. V t21Pl` l 1 Iej "-- ) ///- , it .A-.i.A 1J• %iv_ 6.W/J\�.,y\ : G�� \.\\ /� .3 I.„_ \ c,\\\;��,; , � -�-o'��3 - 7. /1/7. PC,..✓l�e V 26 4-) 117' /3 �14/-44 4,-cu.-e- "-1'3 �'z�Z� — 8. Z_Ai./„I E.: 4/',S iL','-) 1T��tw '�1'9--i,, / 1 /1'l(tI r t , acre„ 5.i —oe--t-)_. 9. n) 2 e-t,-7 - n / :�`%' bi-:A(. u b, v..., 6` 3-_zDYv . 10. RJ I )t)r\M i(-tom , /\ Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email 1. :ctei R,r.-Ie-s / —,2_ ,'--/-1,-! - -,1 Sid-, sY 2 ->1''I 1, 2. /7,]c-k /3/{� eK .. ;"e'<.-.— /'ar �t ,l. -.., I" b ti 7 J� st- >- c C C .<. ..jzs>e ' . .T•..ii 3. `-✓Am)cb"G ic- '�.l! �.tL_L i, /.:3 '! //./'6 c-- ri'- sr/-97e7 4. GCeq a 13ei &IIw,er. Dr, ,2•-og3<I 5.G6_,( lam' (,lG-croll ?� ,- G—-s,,,,t;., c':/( ':= ((((IC.; C2 Z-: IS-%7— 7 k-L-,.-\ f'kc s r v ) I' I 1'I .s 1,c rt v e 7 3'Z l 5 /) 8. C R kftt� 7 S .0 t C.-(Lahr r .tVf' , 27..S--So. -DlM,,,A, fr gcs 3 4f y23 ,, 9.0)41 kite; 14, Sf-pi eta� ' .si-u rye -t 9Xc Alttc-L;rtit d nz --{,c1gy- 1�1 10. 7) 1 \�-l.iv1G' ,( t7"�V,.•--\ - `e• i i-ti` n\i v'Cv ,5c?-7lli6" J w.1 Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and/or registered voters of Salt Iake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email / 1. Ev17'16 A A.CAf,64uc-1+ `1)t D (71‘)aeur 'k_. 1/V ?:vl oy7,-1 ,i'.e 575 2 'i3 7 19•CCtititl),9 � �< < . 2. if>b�n 1l�tii� �j )l(�� (�� )Z, t.`.)1,,,r)r0�. 4,i1:• S7) i.,,7( /� % -- t, ,r .r I (3. �y 4. / t IC tne,e 6f reel "(6q w.,,,.y'tJc �..e rJ`sL -z' n bel re1S5&c 1 ca: 5. 1-()- -y) tC( s5e.11 la .,2 ')G/l-Sal ',1-_--;6'c>i-,. •-,,,,,,,-5 /F' r i ss-3-3)3 d',),lo 1"I trcPri 4'1, 6. /I iw4I,1/7114�2u: : ✓,,-ia-- - i , -, i J�y )ti ,6l�,•1; , ,,`t,` ?- Z�IL c`+1�SG�G l� � ) J � e,xle.:, 7. L//l % , rt am ; 8. t u.at t<-<, I <<J le((et S v.- F h�. c. Yi �r) — 9. r,,e- 0.5Scot,,,,..3 r- 1 g,st- S,I(:fi-i ,„,, 11�C - LG CX3 Sx/? y.,.":.Yel�•r J I ,�,:'1,1 tau' 10. A d Aid,jle. .0 pm t> 6 t' S.�rvNys ,,_A).2— :;33 tl h. Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email 1. y -✓i,' 1--- 42(.7 dri,.-•••-•",-.Z1:: A1 . ,.A..«,h 56.714v'Sr: ca-Z., /e o ems. r 2./7r:✓ I, L.--- D—>M'--(,-7 , 1�"�_c.!- ', ,LX-Lci '' , ,, 3. �i/'J ( d G�-AM(,c.2 c��G za r�ih.,c, _, c'lt 'Yt da 5rr- 3.3( ✓obrr�e v A.orn.- 4. 3r_ ( oc.,1 0t...1 o�ru•e-- 8(vSSv. :.A-wA.�„ Le. 562-1-33Li 5{)octFvmct30- 5.•� I 0 - A c/f e-s F ri `��Vr L> �'..�,CY,<•.. ... - l .i"' e-7 6. krt,� — �'r4dif. U�v�o� 9 s. fa 5G0 7171 : CotoOVVI � 7. c 1.1 I-( -Ay-AN-5 ,e,3., )j . (,t,A.,,, t ci (`S i .l. )1.,�.ri 4 s 8') .t-' 8. ((wv f/'r.Ai(l er',8,, ✓;7ku.�l.Gf Gv-LU,-, -.C�' '- ,/Y✓,0J,--t,, ATv e e��-- 0`r 9. //o✓D/i 7)0/VO'L✓ / i77). )7 'z S f,�' Y .0.crcf-A l/'L%f 5.?-,-S(S 7 10.S r-r,,, Ca✓,� e_1 _.„,, e5 3. L A4t 4,-�.._ Ave— 5 2- k 2-(. -,,,, 1.4-,:k Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and/or registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email 1.i_wc.(n40. A e.Clmo.,nn------- /_;:,,,,,:,,,,,,,,,,,,-_ 1ti,.(:'i� 3 -1 ck- ?UI —'SS2)-IIKco 3.j ' cSi LY-,.c r'--n , " vv`->- 4.6/ ' s - f /57.-1 p,d-.' ((/,-5g3‘6-2c_ 5. 5-EL"_._k (L( 'C/U %, / l /cZ., - "f3c G.4 J..l 574Z� (,(;( �. 7i/ a-/Ivl 6. �:, .' f '3 -_ ( 3e�s 51,` ' / / L 7. 27E-;21 V </ ,,�� // /-; i ✓ fGC� >G,)-.)...77> 8. Shea',\- l i�,��, y /57(C '760 S ‘i ,c -5 C:j / /�S 10._S 'f'V124^ 'Dal\-q.0 C 1` � c _ _. It-1 ic.. 5t,�r�y 5 rc�E poi —`) 0 - 1137 / '7 --i Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and/or registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on.the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email 1. i/14;c L( F:5--ri fr`4.4f, 216y 2aou"4 a( 582-(yY 0-1. rd coocaS-.At4 2. V VLNGOke Vl\kW 21l?2 Vfx-,ritak ic3•(1c c/ alvitvice14l--"&yt1tcc. 3. P y L S k/,14 ''l 6 4.R., 0t///4-2,,,....e.,w,:,,,— S8'.� r- . a. M i G Ay`f vh '1MG 2l cecdt 1- 95.3-og'gS ngtiwi .'W Yahto.co 5• 1 6 t sFve/ .S7//2 YL 6. • Vf 7. Cr-j ,ls � zzs '_.... ..,,(4_ LC 8. L t KO Pr VI%c1) 4°,..-Q- W Q L 91 y 8 5/e,thd�F v q- 5g e sc4Sb ls ,Yee u 10. .eh• pr _ ¢ t&rtibl, t' r t. Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and/or registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Sig atrre Address Phone Email 1)r>,-4 a in Ya00s-tA/a41-, I260E• 6005 9370-1756 4,/3/6O4bgtib,, .„, 2. hytz0.rµ9 ,AAA) IOrkd �. / 17 ' 60O5 sFa-omb-r 3. d ' � ^" K11 /oL/F ,6ao 3. S es-ScL3 `!ui,�..robr✓�fse+-.Qcu�c 1.2� 4. dia !/ ( c ' __. _..,(61..1 e 272 6xN7,,,.. (2A S5Y-c /6`f c.,!0.C5,224.1..&,wH.,a...rr,6c1- 5. -4/A t y�/�� /(.7,I /Sa �i- _3.6-4--f,/� 6• RtS S I oqn/ ��`^^ /P75" E. 6o6o S 5 E/,;1 l S- 7. Mary S I.ar 0 qkt,,.,//,1/CeA' /c7'7S Corpus 5g 6- Fta-ts' 8. t^ /p_,,/L• //✓,0E 600S col-tie.riatedu..nn `-iart re .lDrl p�,-7 C-=LL-e .t- ,c c-2�'/kte-e".v S22.4 r.co.cam,+.kle,+ 9. Joel 4 ./K,'croe (c- ,' i/z¢J . °C'S SC{ Se5-2_Z3t J1 cow"J- 10. X/I/IA E/i e �jY / //m..VZ.-- ?,. //a.,/ ,C,6-oo 5 S'L 53- z z i Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and/or registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on.the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email 1. (f1 A(J-- ,\ 0.1.0-i 1 A N'- R., Pt -.t i l•- V' :3', !_ ,ij, , ( 17•j_�-�Z\;:'� 1 2. \l!{Iwic Ik5 11h9 V `6644/..c„ �%-)(i �� 'G(7`> p.541 5l. ' ,6141' ). 3.//Al/ 11/45517 /d'1u"J. /DoG S Slc' !/l ,P</dam AlG_`� ii'/ 4. I't, ���� I��,%D• %c 1 ✓ rr ` �Cili' V��IJ 5. - ,t, /lLL_, , /%26 44sr1 s• ,, :, avid 3 54g2492.s 6. Abs— T7�L � -4 il. C 0 TJ O ' 79 h K V'1-''i't'c-i-i 4-c., l'j)A V\-- (-` n /I Cl 9. :J ,c e 1��v\_Liz, ce LO N"-- -- 1-1 b S 5` `-1 UO& ,4 n 3/ , Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email 1. , :';---A_ 'l i /% �a-jq N��;,'f'. _ yl , //"7:_-/i•7/ — 2 j n 4Nir=1 CL- /'), £t 7 ------ 2. � ��( 7 l�r>c-iciaf PtL. pq�«t 6,xv.„ .,( 3. '/ 4..�:+ lc f� ;'i: .. Ai /�Coc <e c. p c I. � � 4. ' /l,', 2C �Z- _ w— /%% /</cx.}_s - /-",. /- 2-/2? 5 o E fiSSe..ve,(I- .4t,c. 53'1-022 / 6. Mcwx-r,-, oln,-Wci lip a I 65.1 t, • Rob 1 't /tom Wnaur.. w�v/e as�. t l 7. . ri . . O - - aPI4(t 9PLII,e5 ea. 1(1-9S-y I ,5 GGin oQp� / 1IVI2tAok 32V33o1 e(vooil �, , cec, 8. ( �'v" y�L�,�t�r.� ���a k ea.c, 9. 57-� t��---.— i52 590) r C-77, 10. ( 4r s !' s i33s• 9�e lN 7�IZ�ySq �. Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email 1. OA v E 3RI A&ES <�-^ ji 3i;1,1 s. 'I-.ur l�:,W:J, a 2 (P1)5'11.1247 c�.�re1•.\ , 6eL�fine,I e:, 2. ;Pcinct F-›R+i>GCS // ......,..3„..,-.. , 3. kris-, L'.c clot-s • `9.4.1 ,en d -rzc.s. i300E. (Act set-GIP,-; jc,one'j Oar id9S.Dc.t.c;hyi 4.✓/Ml B/1-06e5 (-\._ 726 S. 1300&:--. 513/-045- /t /1 5. UI;zAbet-l. P<rkes -.. P.,„t.kn, l2a4o '1a G;I,.,t. Dr. SY3-31 -0 i 6.",Ca 1. )A 11 ,�' 4', ; >> ►`f"72 c=. i %DLL 3-I r,-) 7.J s' its 21 7 14- E luck g?)5- 1( 1 8.ecot /teM95 , 656. 64aver-gi s'. (c ))(fl—ye-ii-z C'f t;���-4,,,, 9. ba. Y'fu e r 4tM0/�. 14 (?Z)?' 5: ati r/nl-at7 '. 60/ 6S 'Z'1 E<fr-{�c/i,9 vr e L., 10.—k\/oIAVI ! e ISO t'1 (/e.(A/I� VIA,Q''' 3k_ IZ.64( E • �.006S . CI(odc'r SIf-t.,c-e01 /kc,c l.CA.._ Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email 1.-tJvI1a t1. Nixeri f6,14.... -?)-. nc /009 56 . /400 E- <5-63- or' 2.RtArlclA Nixon Pr1.-kA.i..tj,.c9.. t x..4Em- 1009 5n . 140 DE. ,S3-Osgs 3. cf anef 11ixoN .Ja444,A 144.,a e-;afiner 1Jr. 582-5(2</1/ 4.e onl N I'1t Ca w l rytA%0vv I y 7 0 ail v 'v Dr, 5 - may/ 5. E Ii2.o)o A N;r2O L .r-� d°Q9 so./ D'O.�sf' Si.3 -0S9S 6.e 0,4/l�n r ac,L..�, / /,? ,,h, ,„ .-,,.. '1 C!^ :7` 2( E A.,- 1, J, / 6 lJ/ - / l7 / 7.1f 1)1 Cl,r�2 �o 1[A -/...5W-- .�22r. --S 3-/,27 8.CCU/1 .Fe jL 4-1111.4 Con IL she,I(a/ it-i(s 9Ct) ;) . 583 -sgl 9. 2 4 Z L'4/fi,zq (�/ 4$ it/a L_ 940 > 511-q79/ 10.,,Ga.,,,,,- ..A.9 Y /if'7 O f y-Grp.r'E' 58,3-O 7 3 2 Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) (Signature Address Phone Email 1. LO(GA✓/ rCr ,7- � ' /3S"s-S, /YW/ St2'13v 2. K<rli&-n P�r'Lvloorita�f fi<f ,�� b5 6 ?oos? %)o-y/Y2 3. J-ICJ c l �o IU.1 1 .0 /Jf/y ;,,,,c>.-r S7 f'Y(�.-r.T 4. OrY1 Ella M 041 C.Att. , 4, Wt5t, 5{ s s. LiC16--- -2 by OVArrlItaJjg16 V i;� -;Car . q 10 -3i3b 6. , I I 331 Effi ii,i t11 r\\ (i r 63�-417O' 7. "i'W7 CP-t R- 9A-17/,---- (5 3 7 (-: ( ,,11,1,0/ y c,7- Z e 8. N ,� �76 0. iiirGzv,?. S3 53/--6 9.- i Dt t -PIA Oaki- I`i32--i _=>4,Joisi Ave50/-y 77-� 10. t "ksS'A 1>Q11w,t2. DJ 0ti-34G.5,,vm)s\AQ Avs . 3 4111 Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email .L /�i�O,A ',. J_ir5•aI :) i 1. v /j .5, A=Lfi-1L 2.1I .03✓R,j '-ZL z'S- iv, 2. t.)lx,n F t L c1..1,0—.. nnE.: 4,7\ -.0 42.41, `1`(6 5c,, /S00 S8 3- ', 6 9.---7 7 c i iJ 3. ''(':.-e- .Q ' 'C(l--C... :// .--.---, 5'. /s CO F. /,Z-/5(3 4. 0.(11b.„) FI)(7 t\4.1) ..LL,Ut� i21,V C�,iN r 00. q 2-t)i�`� 5. /1/ayrWi 0 �d�, ���, v�D-�{)7Li Lvl le- )`7'3;J lti�eAw✓�,.NJ 6 L7)��;�,-c 11 l 1 6. IZ, Ke.3- 1--f-k.e , � „1, . i r i abn au- /c/f71...f,j- ,,/,,,a-i %530 :El "0Z..1 S , .57r'2---1552- 8. -- '11 k 1 `S,1 i SO VA n 10. . t- l c/ -,-3-D.�, ( �j -� l lc��r�j�:,� (.3 4 t( (/ .S is -)i-1 Y 1 �� Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and/or registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email 5i_c ut gt 2 1. 30111yW tf\)1Ll_ItoMs ir.1At,,lut(. P.0 02( Sze65 501.0(175'0 m alto She\-w.e.K Ave 2.yOh I�Ii+v.1 QV- S' D 8°1-5ss3-c(oFsz_ 3.A. II Pt-L 1 . / , ' ( r360 kam4Ttz ht io''viUT 8'° 7 y35.67/D// / 4. fr a y Ct C r(' I C� ' , (MA—al-7 — 5. 36Io4 Pjrw S•i . '' Z -ct'iv\ 7. 1i ,i >,�ac�, ohs II - +`� 8. t',\\e)C1 l '; )kt‘( ` ARg;i____2r 7 �Cd j4v .977— 3‘y 9. 5R1141NH S TAr-lM 1 T \�� ZI4Z IZopSt==vcL7'1V;_. 5'gl -O S"-- 10. 1141,90g ,3--'rvi v001-1-1 r Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and/or registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email 2. 1 V- 1'ti1 � )CUthAig,jr) (411 v 4) 15 C,ka,u f v l�L �Z-0 te1(2 67t0.14i1c5C-'covuca4(ua4 3. uli�i 1� v<�_ 1)1 4/77 S• LC c 6✓� ( JL6ti1� �l U�t �Qzanzc S /Gar. �y�L�/ 4. -�i t. ar-1iA -e(mac u ck ( J �` ;/,t( tE' ;L , to t /z ,C a lG�litu a�zc��t t ,:-t7. C 5. ao(111Le. C�r9.I_____l __ I3`N /LI'3 SLC. �y/ A 6. .5'1-"C,.0 ...y '�'�.�iiOb,e-r K �fuctto JdltlfJt `t1� 10 -4✓ 84fto3 7._ u• •2.r1 IF1�f?�r 1 f)J CC L 10 6*-1,b- 6yft - _ 8. .,C)9-ft SM ITI- Ij\• —\,135 v%, r{C-5 `V.1I0 (.1sePH c y..�t i 11 C He ;ctal,-,«w„1 9. (YM ' �i.in.6 vile ;'-(tc S 10. ')\�k tIV 0 . Q , i tr.a'l 1�.\ I1` , J ,1, .r,0'k, Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email ( 1. ._l ll Vl(C.'€, A 6)(f,r I i (Ll II�,((Jai i `'� �tr UT b'ltl wl- S I i `l0 .)O I7 JJ�1 ���,141,rf t f G ti �lilf Sic or 84/b5 llvs �svnr„� , 4. .� 71\ i�� ll V1.` ��.4�1 I �. is Su4-\6A-5 v62.S173 ko-trk,-.b d � SN( .S -f-se,c_vL s1;. )6) N < i tJ1pr Cic,. 5. 'L a �A�I f:Sn 1 /✓ c, 5uAn�5ic�v 3Lc` J <�i73 �. ,.,d cPo e✓ 't 6. 876, E /� S S'z.c 84 to 7 7. ceo‘,1,.., /9 3 S 1200 a U„, la,i0-0, ,-t.„� 8. =�.�.1 �. LihcQS ' Nelson 2--73 E,,,esson . ,e SL-c -tloco n l- y�a;1 9. YNt • lk / /2 I. 1 c. • li 10. �tic�c c�c i a w 4(-..-'. C __ , L.- 17�U S . 0 Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and/or registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone I Email 1. �cTts k3w... on0hn. �LC�.4��ll� Ct� --14, /'1S f4Y u�viso'n 4132- -ob' �19ekom0419v.ulii.T49c 2. In 0.,,be1tz C-lUN'w . &ILe, G,,, is. J S. /3ez- , `-/6 -. -/6 )'1 rt,C,i5`''.:;,,C-'/Cc:., J 3. 4 - IV- ?1, k)i%c-7-j _ems If'it l 134n,c> Pyi, ),AAI`},lf ,i-toy,,^tL.c if, 4. L rr-Fc L Al PA 1,,:ic`< `ttl«-E 1 Ly=,t— 7/v-/fx Lc:.r yfa=3,z r 5. a- ' ir'!F' ( tJf///e,i/ /`1Jde , 7f?l7= /C,i/ =l/i -Yi! ,. /✓,Lli'C r•h�iegiht1Li%40-1,/ 6. V I VCl 0,1- ,) 11(( -i) , �i )�(i—1 ;,7-vlhrl ✓/l(e `� -r-<\ 9 / y �` 7. L-1 .(k ..)(Ae.,-, i )S7 ' +.),ti�elh k ... 4 -2�t..1q 1 J411,e,,6„,'1C.I/.Ja-l'l.{:' 8. ' uU(�.1kC,_l oVI� / � ,4 — i13 V 4 b cx)3co SSaSSSN 9. M 1-I-wl "l3r-u, 1-6-)1 ,/(G`kan x'zy, 2-2'70 ( reevt S-F. '1/2-6 03S 10. _i eAkivui y ovtlVv, j,,,,,,,,,j t31.ok . 1 b D . ' r,0„., e kottA2 i l.cam Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email 1. \-,alciiA PL 't k s "L''171.._.— a, z 5 t),,t,,z.,I.i S - 46,(-- 7 n 0 loom el 2,r5N.1,.o6i11lf , c ttr SgtCC. / 2. Ly to y,e_O1.SAvi d L a v>7 (Y78 X cr.,c o/a St;scC gszras- Vi ,35 I2 /y/orrro/sar)i'%ms/9.eIM 3. q1,4,, �A'It- k. iu-t,T ��yF litrnsan Aue dvros—'/ 773 '7 p5h orfi�e w(o (J coil, 4-CA9a 1 INJ LSO N Ail 74,6 'IS' II S"1 5:,19,, , q'/( 0 '1661315 16jeci if_PCer e:ycz.ka;. 5.f14R4( 14/v //,1 Z 4c-izXxtc`i r, li ` k7 097t itrni.colm me aoi. 6. D/1' !Z cAwue-K. . (en S 1300 6, gy1o5 4(.4-4993 lot.,c.Awv„-, .ns,,. 7. rex $Furs 4,„a d/�— 21Z6 yu'.4 Sr. fr&f 9f o766 P'�G4/Y „/.t/4..Go.y 8.RiVAVIAl L,/,,,x,, vot,t,„77 :)-r35- no.r711`106 " &DI; 11-g7-574/ 9. r5 ,.(444-0-s4.--.- ..-- /sus-, 1,,iu- 8-rlar SI2-dc 5q har t"r Je € crav'7/ ( Vacuums•/ev 10. C-\ e -- �,---Lsr(�-�-w d 2 e,r i ;.. H, r i2.. b r.,sy106 :2c� '2Y3� Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signaturre� Address (' Phone Email 1. d I Vl l '�/t�l I/L'I'0(t`�I\ 411,4i tintai __- I 1 7 l'ei AN-•Stey I i D. 6454-6,66 ift p C6'J.irch i k e t 4,1i, ` I ) `/T5-$1'8 ` 2.f, E�en�x tin\ ��6J7 S.41es��n S .I7�1�� �gy�iS er�.5ae,ur nkr N ,ksl.[cn 2 3. Fi C ,J�,L zS©9 -1IA k1 D21vt skit-c4DA ¢�7--2grl- 4. ncld Ctranr e,✓ , 2. �E' .—/ , ✓ 2./k i. /co S .:L5 L_G 1 4IC 2 ,5� -i11 5. 1- C TrIJtea `ai /M(;(1f" ;)51(, S, 1200 f, g064037 Hhus1c.3olwyr",;i,f,.-,.,., 6. at s a t,Fe h e-r-a n 22(00 t ke_St • 7. -D` t ) lk ,/ '_) `-Th Z<i* 1X-c1u---/tc`,(, `)+. 4-85'ZZZC, , rl(.atr-t-ociv-G,-r�x,dzstdt V 'co, t 8. Marco-C'i I r--{-- in�.r,) 0 2�j(04 Be.ia�ly fit- /-f - . 9.<\[.�LJ'rS�,h�/ 61//..3V ' dAyrr )"rt0"t Y/ ,1 V`�/Vt\ itft)7 1& ra71 g 9 cGsr-hoCte9r r4n io. tnie,llc, OowA AA i-qb' 5u017ysc . Ave. `� - 0635 Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature r___, Address Phone Email - 7`))1 4A.0 IdT 1• 4,t4 td c- , P I u, E• 1100 4 ,'1•i'70si 5041116tttrtvli1 1,Vt#11CcWtnrl 2. c1V✓1 k V i(Av )` A 1 ,Mvv 14117 t✓i ►-. 6 1`4(Si ��11•113�,SA,41C, 4-1''i. 4444 3JG . . _ y 5.f in,a,e Ss 4 -4966 y n •hel 4. \ iO 13,6STIAIJ //, II— 145LIC ‘;,,, ou' E 46,6'613s i GAsr(,3.4rro co:, 5. rifon e, c),0.5 ,dn big ),d I`6i5 5 `200 E.. 100 013 bbrabLgn 6xmt3DDCP,.(0 6. )edti1 s 6 - {l,/ ,%, wl '134, S izv0 6 /v7"3-737d' dediefo4 40/(. .e/ 7. W .1'c(,6 4_ iL—Ji/r ----- lac hCv�_ -\ y6G c'ii%i !o.r,; ..-,-.(..,--,-;e/,(e C&. - JAE�ENE J•WiRuf 8. � cr- A0. _V. M T— I8so r0AiNoesr. 5S3-Ie1Tg — 9. C'�'o1 /' j//s-�i,/4/c S / `�c >�:. c i o�r.C/1�� yl�<; ys(o 10.•r(\,, t (Gn=t VV.,Al..I.,/a pi..- `i Al-r.,33 Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email 1. 4y4- l/\e11' car-61 ,bti" lv'rl - S14.--,W,\shre. Cttcif SSt (r1 `f`<-1 050-s 2. 1�%�-�l CA Ct LA V�'(c w t., 'v1 `1 �-, ,, ,,,,' . i(,-,I E Sheri ocA bt-- ?41 D5( -u.—Genii Li 3. .A\y' `��i� / rZ -G/ti, 2S9D 11�(a.r -d`()L b 3aq-zai- 4.� G ULL V� l" - (('fiR/9/ti iiiiikZ So Ct2 Y✓i�cv . - Wo S -3-c)(?"3 5. )1014110v1 S0,1Ar✓1/Vl 'ill/ J3 ctt uuci9 D�/ ICJ S ?„3-0 �65 y 6. L J J ( i)oh (��� 7 t IZ`i 5 ✓,,,, f,.Si.C.,o it0' 4(-,- -, 7 7. 1/1/1,2 1-ar(12.4- (,t)Q>)J)s 1535 c/1t7 5. 'stilt55 5257,-19V5 8. ► tt A`fo>it. Kecttl 1537E it°. so. /06 5 -97c7 9. �/� gcirlex Atar/-� /537 t:".. 1- .So gY/os Ste- 2'7v 10.4/ SToveu llc0,1tam Sf Yy6 Sor(fit I5 Ea 8y/o3- f--21, 2 Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) / Signature { Address Phone Email 1. t,)22C, N.., (1i>U.r� l0 L E, i` 1t"Ltk , 'lri;1 r) L.Ai ,._'. ly ;AAie:jt,i ..{.;_ +().^ 1,. /,..i. 03: 2. V\1 t�� �i. 6'41C�V� 6w /�� j6-� ��, //4"A Y/i7 �L(774i 3. OA ii ( 11 . Cco, w "4.,1 ' N '1? ke�-'t_ '\(Lk', ->°�L i f r F csy(6,s Cst L\,4::0y 4. -1)A_,-i i F_L— RA30 °��X„,„..,-.e_0 i26b' S'%`f T i 1 4, „4`'e . d c/1 U'1 d c&- i1,l{/�,_, i-,,,.L,;t.7 a�3 5. Ile 6. l'lllco' �c( e< f-i� -'1—' lii`-cn.i<cIF (� I �}N` _� �y �..��, i-�4l•'� � . 4,�.�'ICL. U�k'`� -���� �hc«gym !1 i ( Pe>E.z:a 7. IJ 1-e_.`te-1- l.. P0.� < ,.'" �-"- - _ 7 Q.roL..oer-.7---,-, l.---. _Z`Ik: G Z b /7 {,c, • i a.J.� e�c12K� M.1� • ) 2 tUAi V; r ba Dios 9. i 2- 30Nc�1c �',�Qt�1 IV/ .) s/3 7O7 rit (Ihcics,iuNaO. �'�t l )L1/ c )` • I ` ', 10. '\A \ lif, -b,M. /L't�4;l';l,U. S 9�or; A i 3�6 I, , tt�i�.,�, ' tug Dear Mayor Anderson and Salt Lake City Council Members,we the undersigned residents and registered voters of Salt Lake City seek your full administrative and legislative resolve to maintain,protect and preserve open space zoning for perpetual public cemetery purposes and passive open space use for all land which is dedicated as Mount Olivet Cemetery. We urge you to write the Congress of the United States and ask that they affirm,retain and preserve regulations on the Mount Olivet Cemetery Property to ensure this property will continue to be used for public cemetery or passive open space purposes. Name(please print) Signature Address Phone Email 1. I`Ifji(11.' 'C,tll;f d,�%1- r 1,1,(��t/tv,tt.,.l ( v I;ii 111.1'i`trtl Q , 2Z`-El 't 1-votili'1C{F htti y ('.C4 2. `? • ^�TC,.LELL /° 'E t l I1e�3 1t,len(l)al�1,-.. 7-72-y314 4. .-Vrol/li �//ii `- .+4 y2 , it r !`'-i'I j,.,( 4.,-) IT�i' SisZ-L-C=c`1 5. iltk :AN A (4vh5 ,,,4 pill 7.-4,, /:-Kit , 57'z-30tI 6.`.SSt A Roma J1 - .. \ b �k„..e., �t S%2--14-n 14- -.1,)- //`- am '; r + 7. � i .�r h c,b�a �i i.• �4�4Uf:1YA ricte i\ncrMink fiQ. Cr21't-l1 8. // .)mnrk69 hcl,.,a 9. D Gi(/id i• S. I i r C o 7 ' /Ad. .--. l ')rcI E . 11,o r„-iay. 4\rP, '7 ZS 3 '--7`'l 3 1 'L^m 10. =rIS1"11/ 3010( i ( iA i)✓tim l (C2-H G- i 5c'v - 583--3 -11 Exhibit 7 Applicant letter regarding Yalecrest Community Council meeting Robert C. Steiner PO Box 2317 Salt Lake City, UT 84110 August 6, 2005 Tim Chambless, Chair Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT Re: Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association/Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School Dear Mr. Chambless: I am the chairperson of a sub-committee of the Board of Trustees of Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School charged with the responsibility of obtaining the necessary government approvals for our school to purchase the 13.2 acres belonging to the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association which is the subject of a Zoning Amendment Application and a Master Plan Amendment Application presently being reviewed by the Planning Division. I am authorized to send this letter on behalf of Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School. On Wednesday, August 3, 2005, the Yalecrest Community Council voted ten to three to oppose our application to change the zoning of the 13.2 acres from "Open Space" to "Institutional". We protest the validity of the vote because it was taken without reasonable notice, without due process of any kind, and was in short a sham. As a measurement of the opinion of the community we suggest that the result of the vote is meaningless. Far down the agenda for that evening's meeting, was an item called Report of Mt. Olivet Committee. The committee was chaired by Mr. Steve Mason,whom I understand is the husband of Ms. Robyn Carbaugh, an avowed opponent of any improvement of Mt. Olivet's 13.2 acres. Members of my RHSM board sub-committee have been present at every Yalecrest Community Council Meeting in 2005. We are not aware that Mr. Mason's so-called "Mt. Olivet Committee" was ever established or appointed by the community council, or that any one was aware of the existence of the committee, or that the committee ever met. At the start of the meeting, Mr. Mason was moved to the top of the agenda and without discussion he asked the community council to vote to oppose Rowland Hall-St. Mark's zoning application. On March 2, 2005, representatives of our school had appeared before,the Yalecrest Community Council to explain at some length our vision for the 13.2 acres. Reasonable process and responsible public service should have required the leadership of 2 the community council to inform us of the existence of the so-called Mt. Olivet Committee and perhaps to include us in their deliberations. That the existence of the committee was kept quiet, that the agenda notice in no way indicated that a vote might be taken, and that the vote was rushed before all interested participants had yet joined the meeting, offends any sense of fair play. We respectfully ask you to disregard the community council's vote in your consideration of our application. Very truly yours, Robert C. Steiner Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School cc. Dave Buhler Everett Joyce Exhibit 4v Additional Information Submitted to Planning Commission MT. OLIVET CEMETERY ASSOCIATION 1 342 EAST 5TH SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84102 November 29, 2005 Salt Lake Planning Commission 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Rowland Hall-St. Marks/Mt. Olivet Cemetery Dear Commissioners: Mt. Olivet Cemetery was established in 1874 by an Act of Congress that authorized the Secretary of War to set aside property as a cemetery and to establish rules and regulations for the cemetery's care and management. The Secretary exercised this authority in 1877 and designated the land that is now developed as a cemetery for Mt. Olivet ("Cemetery Property"). The Secretary also established the rules and regulations for Mt. Olivet. Under these regulations, which are still applicable today,the board of trustees of Mt. Olivet consists of a minister and lay person from each of the five protestant churches in Salt Lake City in 1874 that were instrumental in establishing the cemetery. The regulations promulgated by the U.S. government also provide that the assets of Mt. Olivet, including the proceeds from the sale of property, can only be used for cemetery purposes. The present board members are William H. Adams, lay Episcopal,Reverend Steve Anderson, Episcopal, Bruce Lubbers, lay Presbyterian, Alvin Mitchell, lay First Baptist, Reverend Art Ritter, First Congregational, Reverend E. Brian Hare-Diggs, United Methodist, Reverend Scott Weisser, First Baptist, Rich Dropek, lay First Congregational,Donn C. Thurman, lay United Methodist, and Reverend Michael Imperial, Presbyterian. In 1909, Mt. Olivet acquired the property south of the cemetery and fronting on Sunnyside Avenue from the federal government("Sunnyside Property"). Mt. Olivet acquired the Sunnyside Property in exchange for property located in what is now Research Park that Mt. Olivet purchased from LeGrande Young. The Sunnyside Property was conveyed to Mt. Olivet subject to a restrictive covenant that if the property is not used for cemetery purposes that the property will revert to the federal government. Initially, the Sunnyside Property was used to grow feed for the draft horses used in the cemetery. Since the draft horses were replaced with tractors, the Sunnyside Property has been used as a place for storing soil and plant materials removed from the cemetery. These churches are the First Baptist Church,the First Congregational Church,the Episcopal Church,the United Methodist Church,and the Presbyterian Church. The commandant of Fort Douglas was also on the Mt. Olivet board of trustees until Fort Douglas was closed. Salt Lake Planning Commission November 29, 2005 Page 2 Mt. Olivet, similar to the Salt Lake City cemetery and other nonprofit and government- owned cemeteries, has historically not been able to generate sufficient income from its day to day operations to cover its current operating costs, necessary capital expenditures and establish an endowment to cover the future cost of perpetual care of the graves. Shortfalls in operating income and the funds necessary for capital expenditures were obtained either through donations or the sale of assets. For example,the cemetery received funds as the result of widening Sunnyside Avenue,the cemetery has sold large parcels of gravesites to the Masonic Lodge, the Elks and other organizations interested in helping the cemetery, and the cemetery has sold water rights to obtain funds. In the 1980's, the cemetery board determined that it may be feasible to lease the Sunnyside Property and generate funds for the cemetery. At this time, the Salt Lake City master plan designated the property as institutional, and it was feasible that a lease of the entire thirty acres for institutional purposes could generate sufficient income to enable Mt. Olivet to meet its obligations. In furtherance of this plan, legislation was passed by the U.S. Congress which authorized Mt. Olivet to lease the property for non-cemetery purposes for up to seventy years. Before Mt. Olivet could proceed with leasing the entire Sunnyside Property, the Salt Lake City School District approached Mt. Olivet with a proposal to purchase, or in the alternative, acquire by eminent domain, fifteen acres to be used as an athletic facility for East High School. Ultimately,the issue was resolved with Mt. Olivet agreeing to lease the fifteen acres to the Salt Lake City School District on a long-term lease for use as a football field. While the Sunnyside Property was still designated institutional on the Salt Lake City master plan,Mt. Olivet was approached by a group that wanted to construct elderly housing on the balance of the Sunnyside Property. This facility would have been operated as a teaching facility with the University of Utah College of Nursing. After Mt. Olivet signed the lease for the proposed housing facility, Salt Lake City adopted a moratorium on any development on the Mt. Olivet property. Thereafter the zoning on the property and the designation on the master plan for the Mt. Olivet property was changed to open space. The lessee of the Mt. Olivet property on behalf of itself and Mt. Olivet contested the authority of Salt Lake City to zone the Mt. Olivet property. The Utah Federal District Court held that Salt Lake City had the authority to zone the Mt. Olivet property. Mt. Olivet Cemetery Ass'n v. Salt Lake City, 961 F. Supp. 1547 (D. Utah 1997), aff'd 164 F3d 480 (10th Cir. 1998). As a result of the refusal by Salt Lake City to approve the proposed elderly housing, the lease was terminated and the Sunnyside Property has remained vacant. Salt Lake Planning Commission November 29, 2005 Page 3 Mt. Olivet has received inquiries for limited leases of the property for little or no rent but has not received any offers for a lease of the vacant property on a long-term basis that would provide any significant revenue. The money received for the lease to the Salt Lake City School District has provided Mt. Olivet with the funds to cover its operating deficit and to make some needed repairs. However, substantial capital expenditures will need to be made in the next few years to maintain and upgrade the cemetery. The sprinkling system is over sixty years old and needs to be replaced. The roadways within the cemetery need to be resurfaced. There are many trees in the cemetery that need to be removed and replaced due to disease and age. Also, there are areas of the cemetery, the water grotto for example,that have been in disrepair for years that should be restored to enhance the cemetery. In addition to the current needs of the cemetery, Mt. Olivet needs to provide for the perpetual care of the gravesites. If the number of burials follows the historic pattern, the cemetery has sufficient property in the existing cemetery to continue its present level of business for 80 to 90 years. After being unable to lease the Sunnyside Property, Mt. Olivet decided to explore the possibility of selling approximately thirteen acres of the Sunnyside Property to obtain the funds for the present and future needs of the cemetery. Mt. Olivet received offers to purchase the property from Rowland Hall-St.Marks and the University of Utah. Both offers were subject to the removal of the reversionary interest of the federal government. Rowland Hall-St. Marks' offer was also subject to obtaining a zoning change to allow the construction of the proposed school buildings. The University of Utah's offer was not subject to any zoning change or other approval by Salt Lake City. Mt. Olivet accepted the Rowland Hall-St. Marks' offer and has entered into a contract for the sale of the property. Mt. Olivet provides a valuable public service to the residents of Salt Lake City and Utah at virtually no cost to the public. In addition, Mt. Olivet cemetery is a valuable and unique asset that has great historic significance. Mt. Olivet is a garden type cemetery and is an open air museum that needs to be preserved and not allowed to fall into disrepair. In addition to providing a suitable place for burial,Mt. Olivet is also a peaceful sanctuary for anyone seeking a quiet walk. The preservation and enhancement of the cemetery is important for Salt Lake City. The proposed sale of the thirteen acres to Rowland Hall-St. Marks provides a reasonable means of preserving and enhancing the cemetery and at the same time preserving open space along Sunnyside Avenue. Very truly yours, 4)////,!--.e4i-r:—.)!I d;(4-iefoi-h.a William H. Adams, President Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association NOV-30-2005 WED 04:50 PM RESEARCH PARK 8015817195 P. 02 LCharles Evans Mount Olivet ProEerty ..._. .._. � Page -11 • From: "Fred Esplin" <fred.esplin@utah.edu> To: <everettJoyce©slcgov.com> Date: Wed, Nov 30,2005 4:55 PM Subject: Mount Olivet Property Dear Mr. Joyce, I understand from Charles Evans that a number of parties have been making representations regarding the University of Utah's interest in the Mount Olivet property which Rowland Hall School is currently seeking to acquire. I am writing to confirm what, indeed, the University's position is with regard to this property. A number of years ago the University made a bid on the property in question, and was outbid by Rowland Hall School. Since that time we have not pursued the purchase of the property, nor do we have any plans at present to do so. Should the property become available at some point in the future for a reasonable price,we may be interested in looking into its acquisition at that time. However,we are aware of the feelings of the neighbors about the development of this land and would, of course,take that into consideration in making such a decision. Sincerely, Fred Esplin Vice President for University Relations CC: "Charles Evans"<Charles.Evans@admin.utah.edu> —� I L f¢ f:`� l ..:y c;, . , � R � 19 e�nil!, rt t it e�u�wt W A J tor""''�It t - r711,N i 1�.�d1 • l pFi rp�f y p4o I as o t� ti' -& lit , ) '3" 4 5 ,t, F .e� j9'S .�., a' fa',Woes y t Y,. ,K w a, f i v _. .. ,; a �' +y *:. j� J_.1 a —� 'x 'st y, i ,-._.__ be. `%T 4 n$ t, -}.c ., O FFFSt��JJ z''.•s � * a'fH r.,;y..Y 1, la a. -..isk>Y. .:`4' .... -.^` 2q �` \l't r, \/ `V .ry _�'. .,, �•' i • • • • /A C N • •• •♦ • • • C V� c2 ; f E .: v 5• X0 50 can =_ tn � c�v m n� c� mn I, .., z. � SI Q3 N 3 Q ° � � tin s � is- ) ' . 0. .. a �p d '0 = N cn a Ct n n O 0 fI. 111`j� N co _ 7 co < m 3 O O _ _ _ T3 7 cc, N 07 �� n ° 3.• § c> > alod cn ° o c3 ° o CD CD m is.., o 0m 3 0 —tom Oc) m a ° CD m > . m .* xf ° _ a = � 0 e p -... '7a'fit. i n. ¢ - $,�f ,* - : - .`,-,... ' , „... .----4,t-,1 Ite'A , Vit 1 i.k'.v. , k 1 rt�i'�b3 T� ,fi ,} - ' YS P.v I , ., .taYY"tirc `: p m;I ; ,' i E p J , i ; 1\iik\,, 1,4''''4'g'I' ' ' r. '14 T �r4; .. 1 kAl,-,:i.'.; -":4:.. ;i,..,i,•"'`;',,.--:it !,..)r ' : x p7 # 2}4 .g�X �H ,'fi 4 j4 � " X '�ti,r . ..,.�� `� w 4aanax .t 4 .4,-, ,-, it • .44- . ' ( ti 1 N i g I j ''N't1 4- 1 ' "4° a L j I Illitt t '.. --41 *„,., fa I j - 1-42' 701 5r e I ■ A •1. 1 C 0 I♦ 1 ' \ L. o _ _ ! > a •- ca L = C 1 ' �._ rn . 0 C Q 0 a) N ) c Q O c z _ ` o -c r"` r_'`... Ai c� al C =V c O Y aL _"� 6 = L0 � ,c '- c - W ' i a ins ° o asa -- 2 ° � p - CD E a) N -- rO el a3 N w 03 c U a a) Qf0 Q � ao Q'Or, 4 ) > 0 w a) U — ca °) a- To CO-�\CD a a3 u, 0 ' ( . a) aa ." C . >, cn,a� cc � ai ° ai o wo IL ca) ce. el a) � °> ca � a)L Ou> coco u, (no 4. �`i ■Nem y l )-;1 F; 4 mom 0 "' ELI___ ' 2 . • • - -1 4 ; ram ■ r w+ { ;; ! .c g n I a j f 'mar i I a 4141f, ,i., .403.NO 4tIP.1<< A40o 0 ROWLAND HALL • ST. MARKS SCHOOL Julie A. Barrett,Assistant Head of School November 29, 2005 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission Members, Attached is a petition signed by over 400 citizens who support Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School's purchase and plans for the Mt. Olivet property. This petition was administered from Monday, October 31 through Thursday,November 12, 2005, and was previously submitted to the Utah Youth Soccer Association. Thank you, �tQ�Calitt.til lie Barrett Assistant Head of School Philip G.McCarthey Campus • 720 Guardsman Way Salt Lake City,Utah 84108 • phone 801.355.7485 • fax 801.363.5521 • www.rhsm.org INDEPENDENT • COLLEGE PREPARATORY • BEGINNING SCHOOL -UPPER SCHOOL • FOUNDED 1880 We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for Its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club w ^ �'._.,'L`-'-� gur 3S5-PI pH tk,ii\lrtw(Pico 'o-sr,ivad- S-�,c Acc--�- /`�Ay"��`°`a..— 1 w om\t I�b.o LtivOrZC +.2 i �1 tOt-a1$-3 i 5o scm5 have"C.yed SmpoCC Soccer � 3 �«. layd� got-58g- 14yi `"r`e/ 4 R-ye,„,,, 4‘,1(,--, tre\ 5Y)3-It\2 5 L,► L,k t.r-t.*-. u_ r,c.), SbS -tgQZ ItLL�N.,,{, (IQ k,1.c—,.., tow-:cosin5t°"' hJt. 6L1(A Re1si-c ',LC,ur tf+loc 1-4t94-b(oo( Idol-- to Ist"r.AVrhsrn- V5 tuzo,-1- -t-4tkivc SOt -`llN-"-ts Rc, 12cv{-0H.sahrn:oh-E - swt.c vn4 / 7 4 8 ,7040 .5, Acc,-.c j nt.t' 0409zl1. � b 4"01- 733-D1n i x,,07/Qyiu h C7 &t 9 5+/63 ✓R,EMvif Si el-15(4-22_4 S ( ev aD,A,PTv/ ,ccp+-r 10 N\A7"rk�..,/ 7kYLen ;032 Oori..levir,J viz-, F3.N7f-t. v7 6b-/ova) a..o-r_74--&Nv-r�t,fk/e.c,-nl t Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM (Th We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for Its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. *+; Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club 1 i S 1 S,)„. 7S i,',_`x'" �.<.0'7 ti, ,1�S'-4 •1,,i•i1 F4.crn,..q,y,'t..J v� 5.Ib (cr-,t ]�19-/.yI(,�. St`v'9.>,,,`.rr ,,,(,4x1 a ��� �r C-.;pis, m;f(c.cu.lc.� 3 , 1��i t 7\� 114r 1lY -73`�A� `26( S�Z- -1 tAtcl, `, 4 51tArkt a 311C /dl,/I/e>;Al12 15 r E< a-- i-•G u\ 8tl lI C. tSs°y 21(-(- V Z/ �(Q 5 Q 6263 CGfwor-((04.G,- Z77-&o$4 4)7-4 '(I'V Cto& cum 6 14//ice p46 4,07 Cc,/e.,,/col s--. 5-75--_.Sh/ o Si--c c yi 7 3 u5 I 7 br\0.�-. ckyl(�r 3110 r lJMl`1e Wwer l(3�e)4e, SZ:C, , (0- �J(1L9o2 a 3-7I-3(o u-QoG ;r- 1 (n C00.V1^ 8 'k, tz-wu? c a,J-b-D L 4w4-1 n.,(vv1 krt. SC [Ai- 8`1I 0$ ($00 51-3 3'130 L.,ml b',7r 9 � - .-e IScc l .e, arNe S7 C 1-7r k` °3 OC(3\ 3(,`C-3`{L) 10 1G,H (t't(1',1 IunO '.� E64 ,ftCv \ . ,t.c „" i•l3 65010312 till nCaIA 4 Uvuted ,. ill, a ,' 1 ViK: Petition Administered October 3l-November 9,2005,by RHSM 1' j"iw°L „y, We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open ` Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. li: Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club ri a,r- lets ejre_ i1)-5 1k1cveedes. Wrt ,S1z-'for Alp " i lil t 21:444-1/11.�' 774 C�a-IitJVoci P� BL, IlVp Nc . 3 �� -4 L ?ro 5. 60e E. 5:2 . (1 Cel. , ia "5 . it . Z77 Z-31 6 L 11'1e f1 / 6171-tit 1 alCA G)'1(J rC( Lr;(l("L! 1 yr 3zf I CI 2 f,'/Ivlcii"h 1g e tyvlrasfi.nest In D 7 G,lrx v_ i5 OS INir i,n�l�- ii\A IN 5MCA'',i_c ( 1 3(p y— q 6 8 ('`i�l►lll_i Milo-�I`vl 121/,alY„ �1(009 F p' aJ� t-Gl .,/ ni,v.2,Y,a'��1 23 c� nSn,cam' ' fie, � z��-ZG� vcs 9J�,s(in 5,,r•-42__ o f Leukf,��]�,,e Si L s�3 -q-,2O / c�e-s a✓env S 10 V1�(a k u' Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM eS'� i� P (, Yi 3g��, °fit:= ki We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club. 1, ti/'1 Id - Jfls / 3 .3.7U ,�{{rise. (,i,4 `'f(9- /45� J ' 170, t=. He IL,r-t Ave: S8-/-070C) A4,0;42LC)(ewto4 4 E i .)-Pt( -S ;J Z5&io H t Grf-tv1,�A m SC C �I D G, .ek b5�.�fz,tZN S,,'-t Uki(c. e:�'i-O p� sov J(ts Te i rive are,SIC,/ 6 G Plc 5 �lll' �� �f 7�ron,a8 le)'" y1�7�.5— 505. 6o4,04,ew,yf,,6-ea.�t 6 �� �o3 C = &. SkN.4 - ,VA 01-1.i cl-ic-1'i-2 '1z> ma -,_, rjw -kSC\U_yt� 7 itlev ot n( (.,,.)-)3�A.J6,q/ssv Mu r c 1 k f1/`,r� Su55lx �1/ Ti?l�flv l�l(x,�nC�c(�) LN,a�/,Coo- 8 8 A t>1��l1°4-(,391(LS.32o-c�J 4tc i) Y 1-1c tq ojisQ .C i\ `';11-01L c1.I Lh 9 Ba4-e-( I I Lt 31 .Wes-f"rn i►'Sfer-Avc. Alt o s"' l.eta.kok.64--o y ah t.c m,r-1 l o 1-I at tur Spoi Ce r 2,q to fiRaitt, 'c%o t'1-11, Le‘ - .,o p GPzt.5 Law- Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club 14/./&SZ./At'Are ...*P5 /17/4/71/9GKS /. .-y , ,27('',5/.:4 2; -5a4,414.44:r‘rVit47/ z 2/gg 2 / /`g,� _ / . e. � \''^ J dbK /l k(7I�s 3 Yfl) IG1 rn iX d37-7- cu7Jel-dlJP C 4 a Qom,C9, c eQ cY 14 2I1H1 (lye.1 SCG 3a3 335-.i kw.-C (L.lu � �`{ ', ,1 l`t'--OOG Wv. LSJ,ATNAI.Q. .,...A-.\ 5 M�Lwbc1 �r_.,'.niN4t- �Z v�4TtQ;nO_ C,�-,,,,��., (L.1. �m� CA,/ 43T� -5 � °1 6 a.._ voELKeRu>>JG- 2,103 SHER u0,,t) --o2: ve sr.<_,vT 8ylof S-81-o623 7 ETC F .A1.,_ '. 3'f'1kb4 c pt_Acz_- gpEG1 0`p- P�c r�ei�zz+ , �ac4__ 9 .\( CkA t N� `2\ ^ S `l o\D .(.4J(1\AN\.\ im=16,0, /],, 10 /L -«` /?d9 E /5/;,,hv74 five_ .5-5/-0 Sao Lyme/.rZfir..pw,c Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RI-ISM • We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club 2 IS7s'itylirivair WAS SW set 53A4-, 1/414-41 Sox-9-- 3 L /(r As-ARL/s 4'vtl a'l/ p - 3- &c55o/ 4 APC /6a,5 -7k4, (.)! bl rot 3s 6 -3S 6, / , 14 5 1)411A t'r' M OVA.*C+f i5e1. IVA 66 :10'444'cc �.0n.- -6 +r 6 cdkl., tc,1\i, 11-19,0 Oo'kv1/4(51vsn pr. a'I\- 2.37 P`ay6. ckit\Ovr.66 7 TO 0 Ki n/ 1 Vor Fed-live/At o! 'XIC_c3 z-,W 6 2 8 alpall Ma►^./c^ i Yo q Fec elr'a.� rte i l kts A: SAf/o 3 S// 4// I q(1 .ififtill 1,44 St_ Pi 10 2- .Cohik_ 10 A l ri an /V6 S T ma h aA4A Sir eY//3 A Petition Administered October3l-November 9,2005,by RHSM • We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.IViark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter playa(or has played)for:Soccer Club t' i Q Dt„tib / 1672 CoMe'1-1cu1-Lrl 3sc33'S3-b4 Ifie,n ti.c_irn 2 13a30h120 . �1. .35F 5 ''5 011r-; ,15:13e03,,,c4 •nd, 3 . /30. nsppfl1L s-is�6lo6 1�rtfy b.l•n-Q" 4 . K om 5 • 2, — O x • a . o 6 “wf-tP, Gvyc--OIN Nopura Ai. Ci;c 572,-Ty3 2 /�'C.cjij e Plussain • cev,., 7T 1 to-1 •w .-i IJ nl . seaa-2t2.8• -rr ortrog0(,c . 8 (IX( ed 18' WA/Mkoed &. 56 sei#7 goZ73-/Ihey14 • 9 a)e./1/d) 4SJE E Qlcp� SLe Ut 89t103-.Read some Kole io �i0610 ^�,//� l`f 27 e- Lf- ,ftYo3 Y)Of 31f•COM• 7 Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club i V:, c''^Q-� l.Y.Z( �.).`rllk PC")S Lc,t{CF-ytos .acf. (f}vSe_, 2 /` (:vfi�i- 12-LI- a/S s Lc- gq[o3 ,a 3 c...A►.r•Z\--• (1(-A Ari c,no o In Dr. �� C 8 q t 03 —` -----__ 4 f)n iI P,f.I.i Ll4 : c f}ITI I t/ldr}6VLL� &t l®� 5 g. it 9.4 /c.S'o' &41Y 1P1Q 494- d I(0 3 6 /SSL / /it. g (10 3 7 .-✓ Ao�. /D l�34� �i.��c�zet�, 8S� 3 8 75 CS T 'Li1 � 9 A 2G r _E?� �r��� 4 ggia( io yot 16Ibf�iff..l �� Js1 0-3 Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name - Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club 1 atfbi F( Tie 550 So .Do-1,44.4 SLC (IOL 5 D----OSs•3-U earn I-6,6+116eU Sa4-1, 2 .L(1a, u.a 1531 f. bc...6.t Or sic tin 94)21 ?it2- SI L (Nekrylrle•a't@Phswl-orr 3 Tonn h R 1 a_ 357 -6. CGtdr/' 6ve./ St-CI U% gY103 328-/V99 Jrvya@teno4y4;14ncv.tAw,.. 4 Ia i/ ,V i(01.-0t i y/9 rO W ct. , W tl e ! g 5//d2 ',ANDS GC/1 P/c10 L.c.o y,-1 C� 6 z. 1„�C,I4, fi,/'rs-1wn 1` e J�r,ls.. n,.- Or 3l.(. gl`'1R- wr+-tJw-mc.n®�al,or,.r.an 7 hA•1.c e le-6n4 Wii 41Ato Gt/ At!' gyd3Z ly toas,n, risni,60 8 /� ' ; a�b/%O e—.t{IQ�ISS, SL.C-,\AT(y 11.R- G+Nnbvnroie\ips`hSm. v, 9 Gra.rY,� 4. 1. ,`,p1� 1 /osV 01.Z6vs 7 SG!' 11 r r-cI 9 ] 10 A_au " (UOrha,,,r\ 3S9n 5ut„w.t�Qatf (';vr�Q SLC, K7T y/2/ r 6 ,j Uroo• _,,zr--1,s'"'`.o✓G Petition Administered October 3I-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club Sg iT) ,�t,4/e5 er ,nM,,,Y 1.�JL(`�CPvL eG lPS i 3`17J. F,l„�-l�fzevs Cr NL� 3- )7� •) -i rt lairci s 2\;iYiIi/e/PG rreir 23sg Sc,-,/u�Oh. .Sr c cs�fio9 Ll �-vs 46, /h 4 et 3 2.14 , 7(2 / S Sr)S A^Jt1 / ur Sf`7.4)7) $Zy -5/8 -'/o2% Z,,,, iv-. 4,/45-n-az- 41b4hc Q -rEbLiAr- o/cefkk Sh12x OK-D r. Sl_C- bcI lob Wt•Scn.att-R-o Yebvcots V`1$4 so,Pot p / I o Qo .,:Iuec 5 /\c�bfk� C� �rPiNP� IT)-( IPN��Se fbn• 3aG-GIHI Rs�"PiN��a�Scv, CFI C 6G Is0s,ne- F'cce..,-,-•Ar-N 601015 kA4o,-, CA..-,\-'or. S83-I°i69 ?a,y2n(-..--__Gao1-co, Le0e4g-AS 7 And re,- 111i q 1 ps t j 1A, ( olcoCt Cr cU uT.$O ti0L O0 ,1 q h.AS 8 Anolrect 11Jorrfs 4114). 1160 s, S13- 9$3a dncl+ravtorviscor4sm,ovd, 1 9 m.I 14„ Oil u k) NS+f'I Tgn�.lrwaod Dr as0-5363 e�m‘1tslat.,na r llsrn t o''�' 10 ( R71 .c. ii - -5/a • o)h 'I,co ettolg In+-ti Petition Administered October 3l-November 9,2005,by RHSM • We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hail-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays as played)� for:Soccer Club 1 LS2,54.4141ot WNW) Ir24y,6 ld'tt8�(3>eR 6 (4)--9)3-5?-o a vl/1(CA-C' '—/1/( 2 ,6('fAkt_ck m)G d n 121 z K, Ull'hI,,ll� ()- St C- Gt Fy(D3 ���z l 3 ,14c6L Phi 0-0 S- qt7 may- ' .s-C-C l(-T D5 4 _javn.\N, hss(,r-a /911 S u`O vhP).e b36(. S . i `At Id) Q,kuiu.Q4praax..e„„. w y tnsy,.(,t--e. C� 5 Joe et 1-- 32c- Al &,,;,,cc, Sfi SL-C VI et/03 P 6 .cd 1-FG Va\e 4I �31t5 'FP/cm 'Ode SL-G Jr 84009 SQr11"avrll -6(§1-rsm.by 7 11/$ t, a, , .des �..el. auc- ,5_,,f S -1 8 e V1nt ZeAuP`( L.1 C. 13n6, �,C. tAl---- IlioT 9 `J 10 J(d7--(AA i h 0lc _— Nil cfral-W-d 1'ivr- Lill-2-io j -�)refor•r,If' f Petition Administered October 3 t-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and Its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name �eAddress Phone Email Address My sou/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club I i�KYa71, KKE7-5Lt/"le T72 F ih.&t,CtC/o(e Ji.G, ,`Y/,ti y71,-243,i AK;,..o-jeseo <:,..."-,..i;e.42- 2.:„c.tTf (.-0-#2i4h, -737 ELo)c,,, i v2. �-Ail, 4/'✓ 3:� o't!n°- `/ l7-0 F.M llrrrfek Ct/e52(G iNk 5/7-,,9"jV -7646.-or 6)comae St.,K4 4/ 4` „,...i, 3. // 'l i e �,,, /( a�6,AFIF irwro(>trt or) 5 uNPt Epp IN N( 296o E, rwa-YS M( 49SO' Ciila.,(•ear t�.o 6 , d i.sok\ L--e(61/1 Vt1ah 1 t3'S E gati 5 0 51-C aii3Offid6l b 004), f.v0— 7 Pr'lrlA C• 11St SS4-)F{,ito.aS,or',�,SJr.*i,.r--,,,s%4t13 JFi-31S0 N, 8 P 35 \fit (d z 7 S.Lc U7 x ,d „^�, 9 .�f i.,0 ('( Al , '7'/ (A),A ' L 6LX Pt ' eei I I ,� (Sa.- � �11 � 3 � G1 c { gctiool`c��lt�,_ 1 o c,cowl , m L,TCtn -- t f).s 41L �rve Sic q IO\- � it Petition Administered October 3I-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club 1 r r ry Si,,,t,-14 ei 4 3 t`S n ---e44-,F'(_p S.- 3-O.7'7'7 .//c 2 PI A101 'N i't0i A;11 1.-if-i4.4,\J GA,le/V 6Z/l'- 30c/0 3 I/At'l 51-ft�rl 1375 j-ASttINF -74V . 5Arroy 3O7-0555 (CyDN ANo tbAugltTaP r�nitt g5 4EaJvt 1 4S1141r)V- rk� �5 Beet y CI- S�-c- 27y--R133 Trw?��.}}-J' U 5 ft:/ J//L11 ' l 7''o:k c.G+-,pu,/Me J L.e J J!--Oi of 6 (7)_n CCLii/ I'7`LD I 1 7 sc4,,,y-._�-, (e2,-c S_C- C_ SS-/-0/6 j- 7 1 Y 1 ,/��0t r.-\ n GI(2 cIi( f S-t -E- c;GL-cA-,--Lu.e-e T)n^e SCE. 1//03 S i?-0'r�u r, S tck 9 �a� V�i..i .c e (0 to S. c6 c., C, s I . SL _ 5 d 3 -r S d— C 06 -( CS<^-`xc'a s occs=-) j� r C 0 ^.t- L �7.� S oc c.�C) 10 V� 11r �(�y�t , �✓��c 5 � ' Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club 1 .,LE.S �Sthn-s,-- 02huL, 14_QN 4._,2 , ,0< S8 � t _-c1S O �ir ,rv5 2 me 1 i Te-1 e. -a o 1 I<-i ne D-p [2t- . `I Li -tt-,1 I(4- l�, P 'er L&1 u e 3 �J` / /-7,4 [�- t v.-.•, `7�—f c(1 - /L 0 U cb S • I,��'�'tl �/ - / ( , . 4 +tU\� /J✓ 6.5`- I._ Wit! ,tom 41.. �7(c ��G'{ [Av.) I`.' ` R Lt/3) _ Dad•5 (cr. 5 <et 6e �4�� cob ,:-v�6` I"'ur'e4i0,Q 3, ysr.3y4, (=ire 1)u-et 3 0, ,J. Oak__ t,51- 12-i 6 _` it- f� T s9 i10 3 Gc-'“:,b-r51. 8 ea 1144,`1 s5 y3%7 LA"levie`--1 G�-- C C.,0T 55=rive St_CD. _F�xir2n 5 9 2±VNA i tV7ik) .5 5.Libry ll low 4 010 , 0-`-t5�-41 to C( l(LA' 6t�� 69 Sacs &hrGjrd 41(B'i (�✓1` �L�(Q 3`7�( ! Lec1�.X�--r�C (�/� `J Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club 1 5A"I N UUTTuJ-.9Ola(o E. STP-ATFDRD De, 84105-55 3-AIL ol-SarahbuttDna@rhSm orq — Pan th-e-r5 2 Fl%` gQru l ((S6 Gr. 7y(00S.'l3g '-f(D(0 C'c:.-fheri/^ebPssPhofpvx;I. cow. 3Ju,ll C Ll vr(5 371 I Sfi- Stx, u7 ,-Y/D3 Juilellve,-serium.c,,-, 4 AM-7 5locUrn 1I4a E. t4.0i- .eri- .st_c 07- g-t lay mslocs'kr ,.cot-r, Yes (2. c , Idre, : 5 6 ed c1 Dan I`e15 ''w 1,luvray �ollac tit*I?S -11 l7 )odemax e, i etc, r ti�irn h , cbv ,,7 6 //0 V 9Z A2k 656 nh o. E /OS 4.'4 irr c h e rtiSA ___ 200 e%A .o • 7 ,1A,Wl koh µyhlatyt-Dv, `1-3 -&F1.34 datevii ellkYhsno-i -- // 1fpS- 8 bt If oZ4$ (S`-f, na !SG°(Cf�e '`f/0�/sFc2� -066 YYbQ {0.1i2r � t h9" J kegs) � 9 Kim N-au.sey- l O E. iAerher} live. g41o$ leimhalesera,rhslv,,org Yes (a''t lo Dee iti3 Fackfortk 4,11.S Ifarnyiton Nest- (lie- SLOJ $I{(Z edk amer{1i11.o,i /�e5 Petition Administered October 31-Noveeember 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields.that will be shared with the community and as a_ campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. '-i-Qa,y 1 Ajet_IM- @ �— Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)tor•".Soccer Club I I,(AV Os. tit lwnGnec 15' De.✓.ry,*.e: 1), 557 d,21-17 lGUrdl~ri.kant-V,;)(ksr-.„D AJA 2 /l Mq t7 fj1 a rrp ``) l�` i t.ii•/}� (,J�l t s�� ga-(6`(( �i(yq��ta rro4Qr L,t.a.ar5 SvhG rn i/4 e0rta�1 p 11 �y pp�/ J' P`I t a P 3 rN ) 8t19S //IQ,LtI< Y. S yol7 3 7 a 6/0 ^{f 6-cww¢ N !lkis,.43 `r �J 4 it / - -a KB n5•N n5-N.. /Ca,Q'/J 22 5 _l 'rJ�/&j��s_C 9 s.4�eL r(-1 e 2 -�i� 1 7 6 OAK.' V f r�iv.•�j� y f y'S S11C/1 f ate' �7'�/ ''�3' t� �'}�U� 5�/L13d;.5'��7�" ys�l 7 P10'11Q- K CO to F-: C t q S/VIt(,) 6.17LLb al a-I 4 -n !Ili w to f 0 c lc-vCt,la 4-X. GO--- U ys,:g g l- -- 1 /3 s ibx tic Kai 1 ; _g aa-f. u . ti4 �1 �,11 �7 ,1-9a'II 9� :12A / 71,U•,L�t. , .207( E: S: L u-r- a.,n'ir7;eke x rhEi✓l,0 r ::/ ..-;ifelet�^r I0 66VV.\ Y1.t,uk Iz l (2,I4v/LaI)n. 53.2K1y 5hclao1vtiuir0rruM.ofj u�PS P.113 t�t cry( Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club Name Address l , A--�,� A)u,�S� �_ Gx2— ' (v R us r. ?o m om. z \ l Erw1 � 7 " 1 13(0 PA'oy Pak3mnl A .(ovv Irg cf SacLel�— 3 o�ae -L BQl -to 2q5 S0.retclactlir Er comccof.ref' 4 3eaA-ri Pock).- SZg — 9303 csarocha@ ea.r-hllhk,net- U,o po-rd (eCV,gre 5 e .e- Sic - 595 85r4 Rci p - 1 a 91 6 Scv(o,k B( 1i G " Sg3-- L.1(,, (-1 7 #,iifl/I�e� y71 % nil i`rf e "1 — dir,i/r 47,v/�� 8. , / .2cs 76 el (Z.\A`1 1 ). . -a -,2- act 90 , (vVl I/ 21-2,-( ID - 'v l/ Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club C0111ia Ha I Li4 O w\ir>`h-n1 C 5 q15 3 tall naTi8-na I bets. (") y ,l ,, S(VW (l (( I I\ 3 o0N aL�7s�s(`/ ti 07J5`-1 4 �/�_ ��t/fin vw05 ) 6 - i7 �S�IvCS�� /y35 5�yo £S2Z7 r%c 4 wer<�c 6J «-/ Lnd 4- J C/JAB_ ((_,,�II lC k-//u� j4 cht f,,/et-art y.ram.. 7 j 1, -0(- N 1� '112(�rarneNAk). 7(�e.. q`47-Z192 -rBtr�I-friE(.� +tt6,1.,,,/ g 5 5 CoHier LI3 0 �.(,J,hie,14eui Cgo)a�a,Ri LID a/4- A 2 ,� ow 9 Ps w G/1 16fhs /DOZ 3nola S SI S1L u,/ Sy/D5-5co- 3 Zeav� 's moire l,�rds 4447 NS IJ(i/ cLl u/ 94I('-7/ --?61 '-e" Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Addr ss Phone Email Address My con/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club I n1 ,c\ cah- G11 , lassntuce�,,c Price .t.eY 2 111101 6IC LejS(lick 1\01 tuCaLFoteS,+Fci St.c.,ut gilO3 531-1.53.. Sic,ue- Lccetes 3i CI YIiL_G Z-q? f11 l C ka jC ..__ StiI DC 58 Zf55 Z2 ((mar, b rp av, 00(nark 4 / Ti �/�-:-n.) -7oa 3 4.1- � �/ p ` a . 0 `f/2" 6 /i ,) 614 it-ivcW zA(k 4 1 to- 1-h + d gill'? �,i Z- Lt 7 L IVY. /2rt>7r ',Jac, SLC V F i- hre��(d�/���I cg //,par() s � ( 61 4i (��� �tiry � yl g " Gndy•wt1Y;S(a�gqnnniiv.k.o.,i t.„,5 10 3 4N-9 S. Tat,lors ParK Pr- Ta�lorsviIle, 94-1a3 1 L, Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Nome Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club -Fh I KDr Mjk IL/(ry 1-1 2 W( M- Q6v c, a W 7 7 wI'f .Coy 3 fel 1,1 041 `l t- Qn I N. -( q do Wes#eNt p 1 @ 01-► . CO m - 0 5 0414Wk 14121517Cli i1 6'73&S. 1-(c>•2;7 -• y'1/'CGlefe12/keaol-0071 6 1--)r,c , resNca. s 33a7 >q/m�,1icDut. eWse.t, 1 i,--14 )-0,4sect S- .r 7 ��1 IA-CA — l4 h djSEYv &,-S`6�.9�r bV I rc GC;61o/o gUl-.2 R S -51 /a •CGi l�ex, 8 oJOv-c,t O1 J-Q.1_ \k11 F tkooC ��eu/0lR1 2°12-3-wl .1� /1S SOccer0 0 9 Li �'iiTi e, .S2% i' �etsxs 3 10 �y --,.-- (4c' . -Av *03-367/ �io(% l�fooeco cf, �ccei-cam u i Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club Name Address „_®/-1,-S.-)-un,„ i K .,,., (1,/ �s3 .G/Gs 5(,rpv CoYI/uuy 2 61In-12I( Juf�h�r}0 Q r'a 0,4- • 4 1 Vtil , ` v 37S 6 r�y c .—T7 ef5 5 ' tc� " S t�81S 4.-_ 6t d, wu — y aust--rez coc-ce,: — 6-s� 7/ y,ce' .S-vec CP S. C.l�,-._ 9 z vr�c�t �15� 1 l 7 Z,5 ti.GUm re <S Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club Name Address IltAt 014' i Cavo1Ws 1\1\\1 w °\e 1 VP R')'-' ')iA tisq 2 ' VI_ I 2_` Sr 0 c\en (AT '601 yes9ci05 deanA46 3 2. -1- L',1 -5 36 c c 16. t-e n• o 4 / D SO I )33- 9)Y3 SNaei - cA,rl(5-61,, G Y bmn• eel+-\ S ALU-P(0).94' (e7b1 Lt t 'tom CU?-de /Gta (l/')C,AD-X,N eA 'L7 u, t,, S 0 1 kB 3 0Cfn 2. 8 v ( ,"G":7) fit)/ -3•3-1-a' ) 4.4., u-= f) '/„- �%itiz 9 '\ii\D. \---( Q-- ly 4, So f 16C) a- Y rhwp fe_,y6fib°,coo, UYS ��J vim._. Sc f 5�S"5 5 Y6 I cGJ.> / p ``1 Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM • We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My s n/dau hter plays(or has,layed)for:S. er Cl it A . (; S ll2 C Chnt/l�, �!• . 10-D(l ', 4 s'�,d' A.iw. ice 5'p(1Zr ii�1%. i 2 L'� / / 2- 7 74 Ste]�'g t> V✓D Ih so✓l C4p1 iti( 1.•r. ,„„ ,. sj% _� _ ... 3 ✓i Zt 14 '�•�luIic.r r o:z l8tZ 1C Awre_Crrnresi .vtel ,. J 4 --D IJ pew. a T N ilrk cef�4?1 SY2-161(o -Gdir alP. 0 lit__ bin ivi 3%1 E W\CI ti, _ 441116 5 3 SSLi Vbla'vl�uvi yl, . 6 S{ .t NI SIB , 4 5 3 S V ed a, i S Lc r t, g u,LA, �v 7/6�tie v/7 '19 a/�rfe e 614A1on/ 4, 41'°40 4hi- e . ell.Net N�e 8 � ,,/ A ,(l.,„,_,,c C/eciC(�; 9y3-97( ",2//aria .De k,f( ,, i,_ /.LZGr 6G�-�� ti.ScJ tt,, � 9 /Ob-7 4aK _. aL G•'•..,k Ci,si C„- , ,9•13--f74-e 4o67c�.0E,A:i.,.k....1 10 UATk v e1,. Ci (D QS M S'QOJ U WO' CO.n -E 'e(VGA i,v- .' -- fi're-b(tc (AA)) 4 Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer ub 1 4-(04-. Mc2(f( 5a-3a0ki ,„)Adr-1262d(-c( bola-( 2 Rol/IL eel-iiici ( L(7LI-IU-(2 cApA/Pnisam. c L(-04, C7rIc e a }�clo1 y 4(:,(,-c,,Zs4- mu, s aaaaE ctietIzatS 1-`' �-� �y, �/ a 5 11a7.1yr C'4rv�- i ie -- '7'ic - 5.3/!`'/ 56<3 UiP' cci S. 4o i Gil r�i'�/o3 6 KGfGir Aic9" $ 512--3C:2y K'-aA0141 ILA of !J� 7 r 7 •Gl.L-cam' 4 <C__., TO 3 -5-`1 t- t,l h-,,o_44^-Q kn-t,s5 i o,-<-o— 8—j,E,rtc- /1,91c,v� ( I g73-8183 ericrvtcruseya.lce,co/1.4 / // 9 U.0)(A `rton,Jc-\@ S^oI•OSZ ) tvs,rJ gr(u'v„z,(Th...,1;.L:tdo. ?,,,f:-- (si,(cf' 10 \-1t-e`, t e A 31,3 37o5- brelf-ericArntut. ccwq.a_g', +'ut d Petition Administered October 3l-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club Name Address e.y S,pv)/..-y 3 oh i.E t/4/ Gl`4/I//G .�3.1o,Caa- A-/,,,,,err,?e,,sn,,,, ,N l�L� S c„, .k ,. U7Es i�/wn//'/1orr S /T--- .3)--10-- /n y 2 1. �.._ ,, l.;f�•t i f G! fA,..+L 64// .c., Z.-,A /4 f.-Glf vt--. 3 /l r. 6,,Li, ,.y (so r) 4-G 3-Ct,S� be,'du...,L lGt r uK,{ 5 < 4.,4 /J�/ �'.-j G Ifs/ice �.�i ys -g-14---c t/h. •G'PS c/or//...vr < 5 _ 3 ( "(t' 791 aOe -.. S-i' hi g/fig voshiS"f/'Q L/AL.nu.c ,, No 6S IV, �(e , 3?.,50 S. �t6, LIT 01oLr -9 Nf tmee) ,c , - 7 -Ja.,/Cr--t--', 5 IUOZ 17oo$V,.S S-t- SCC_I UT V-((OS. 3k31-tct •ean,T,cots" �,i rc1 s a�IS F.IoOoOS, 8 S2rl Q+eJ�i I cAd-L,•, SMKc3 t-1.410- ao4 -,,c ieVil e,Sisn2.i-om ,25onS 0la ctrC cry- 0Uca 9 \ (~u. 7 1, -i,,11,u1 ,iMt0, b.t.'vTif-mow git—Lhs q,4-5 -" 1 WO Ctx/11 .co y.. to �J � i( �w\l SU1 2y 3 3 L3 b JoL,v Petition Administered October 3I-November 9,2005,by RIISM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club Name Address - 2 br, di/7n- (e' / Pr�' d/112 a4 5140e o/. co- �s S a -c;w • 5Thl-552 2 � I ro p,ra�S l-� . 3 ,� W� 1 t ,ah 1� I I air ewtt‘“).a 'N- . 37--C Z 1_ pek.SVal.(' 5 ',.../ay.ic,___ Mqq (e 5 /5/5 Mi!1 ., 6)-, 359-7.4 4/ bru 6 �I�N.ttCoPHE� �'' ,,, oY5A- V vVa.• r�w<-'r- i L.SW tit te-‘E roe-- :.Cr.)7-o l Jo C_Von r,pi'k r-I-CCv ar-4:1.cot-- i C\W (dp> t I.s1A E. (r12LtveNTrw prc• SLI• YY`Eti Cetter.si €eh/✓Ilc. rr, (_4 4. 8 9 d 10 Petition Administered October3l-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,Its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played) r:Soccer Cluj I vA+�e5I14 4i6 wv,15 v.,0— POI-s8 -'4s`6 c)1^01 € to•,'^ 1Dcrt It115.CU 7r.f'. 2 1A.YIb4-tk IrQ-t cv ZL{3d (3rAro,. Or S'OI-SQi3-01P63 Lc�,n1ncc�.1-1e.Qvlefukye.n.✓- ri 3 R+'srt<�/,�ar,.4AJt NI�M.AIr SDI zj/i-co s- ��zi1.1��)h✓�nj.,�,1`��a�c�:w�y4.111 . k.€ `IDS 4 r61"e61//13 (UScc e o 6�2 ? L.y(Wvul �,�`1 fG ��'L/'� nib. 7 50• `60I - 1' L-b645''/ I y J 5 �a(>or-.� $eo E� w,o.%�l np�(oor� fhsm. ar ., 6 7 8 9 10 Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club t Lei"A 4vm /i `(S3/ /Yl4 ec'S 61k ?7y 365 le;66 e c v er.q t]S v& S ���s.rid �2 ��f`'-o-r� 2 4'1C�c CA(\re( 4�k( \(?r,rl 15 M)C �e� (&-1 l0� tv,4 n m nl; XoX i�rx�t.s co.cko-iktv/41- /4 3 1- 1-e' 6''dh-PAtk1 311d 4 13a` �• 5��V-Qii+cv 1Pi I.;49" I f3ti vf� jtgiv-7 a +if `_, 4 !_-int4(y rol-v,eJ - t' rrkrt'(.4)Cir Ul. �40°t3 5Aw i1 Ctuly rtir 3•5-1 'ASTbA-ko ck 5L( jJ • 2- G��*. n1 — Sow 7 I"IIIiC- 5tn1 J I37S : \SHIN_e-Ave-Aie . SsNAy g'icq PnmF<1tW _kale 1,1,zak e 8 t4frr'yc'i iVtF-" ( �vtk���rz 4--7; Cre-A'-C--V- .04" l{ 7-4 1✓ �� I 9 10 • Petition Administered October 3I-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club Name 2 4.-. 3 51/ ,r \c,-, 1C-05 5- De.Lte,(4 ce 10 S i,C (4T- •1-10g 0 ( 2 43 -0108- 4 aLiteV UC CVe ‘1,L/ 04- Pi-IIU3 5 6 7 8 9 10 Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RIiSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club Name 1 chcrs, WoorA 1111 f-vy Wti For t-03-21M(o m y c{-f Fry l 6-6 44)-0Z 2 rr, Cif I N "W S-`b� 3`�3 (a'-1 749 y Io. (,U¢� S BL G G 12-- 1 2oPa� L�L 3 ` �"w`m `� 4 .DP41.1) GNAvvt_'yas-- ozA NWAVA-wat4 130t,41C M % Ttr U•irl I zoiac40 5 a—. t fL S�`d3 7 8 9 10 Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club 1 S1 R/ f BUITDIJ 2o(nln C. sT � Pe. 5s3-)4(pl 3 r hhiti pa,i-hrx-\ fix 1Q i'h S m.,,.1 �a,c ru-��ia,r 2 K lC u b4 4"1 M.1 tt-t nj by , Sq3 .C' : , J es 3 +ice Nf Jtr\ 501-332--735q i Yle0in5 �' r\Sl' , or9 '/ 4 Carolyn Leone-5m414 1372 p - Ave. ffot-532'Ili(4 lnsznesmia l-,@vnsr‘.eouri 5 M4(1Z Sta /OGG e S-fA(yo✓f Or 5S-3 -NG( wlvK.G,,,,r.eimQol,.-s<i.uAb.erli f XdI4 6 7 8 9 10 Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address I Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club Name 1 �Ab6j 6/US�7 -�lpr-I I/ 6veivA/rS SLC '-�S 3` Ic(11 CAL11) .,ot�P& �Q-( -17 .Corti 2+ l No 16-e j ✓'4y Ure - c-,,d— 7 1 2-j6 .l} rklr_i-sC�'J-,r--.t.c. -cca-,-sr,c..L..Q.,�f4-4 ' 21 3 s ✓ .)oN.D -391Z E Vt.e.c,^`re 7- yLL 2,5.-&-ktb1(?-- 4 �irrs4_ ' ' . -�� b,5 `.✓ ic-.c.(_i- X,,,,, A'7S-gof3. 5 O Ili VLAJJ1 (r 11 ID Cr.k,A. ALL k q o 1 CIO-U S 21 E re 4 -13zit -.. (ncX)S . S LC r U T S'q I ot.., - tirniihei►ieco(ncr04-.net/ye.) Tm t 7 OC(/tAdf,6L 1(t),0-e. _,Irk 2,Ia4.:). L,/e e_1(,Q L ` N 6‘ Cke.ctealeS ciQ 'CL 8 9 10 Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club Name Address 7-1 2 IT\a/Pk cXC I 16I5 N, 71'la"keleljeq sy'lle .SYy `-5 9/ s A4y ` /114ea-15 f z.V ,J `1430,r e--1 Tr2 C c 'PTO,-tJ c..,t /C,O Z 2 73 3--Kf 3 6 ` 4 `�►^t``p oss,..r1- Wa(ff- .,',.114L4-_ 24-J---/i4i 5 6 7 8 9 10 Petition Administered October 3I-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club Name 1 LICA kA-1 v► 312..)9-e.1S0(75. 55(4°I151 Scu 90),ln r4,1.cvm 2T ObeL 5390 3v" -rok ait.. 583-W edabe(C pI•nef �1 311Sk flr46rnaiii337 ?erri_s J► DlIoD( 336;3-3707 bre �t edwao co,,nca-stnet 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Petition Administered October 31-November 9,2005,by RI-ISM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or has played)for:Soccer Club 1 Text50, Pavia 1,2 J Sunrrsf Air SLt 0r 81/3 U 0-911 Socee. FrrrbrdS+RMsrn 2'v t (dell ednh 139-4 lAWfiWn M. SC, F 4ios hievtues.Sof2J. 4 Foe6lydc a-sons. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Petition Administered October 3I-November 9,2005,by RHSM We,the undersigned,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's rezoning application,its application to amend Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan,and its purchase of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery Association's 13.2 acres of property.We,furthermore,support Rowland Hall-St.Mark's School's eventual use of the property as athletic fields that will be shared with the community and as a campus for its students,grades six through twelve.Thank you. Name Address Phone Email Address My son/daughter plays(or his played)for:Soccer Club K r� / ✓ /5Y53 . ?OUF 7 //Z9 /ur1a,<'sniss/1, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Petition Administered October 3I-November 9,2005,by RHSM tiast cot . $c} i wI C 840 South 1300 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 0, 7-)NC>BIS Phone: (801) 583-1661 Fax: (801) 584-2927 November 23, 2005 To: The Salt Lake City Planning Commission Dear Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, It has come to our attention that you will be hearing comments on a proposed rezone of land in the Mt. Olivet Cemetery which is adjacent to our East High School Campus on November 30. We are concerned about this for several reasons and we would like to request sixty days to be able to address our concerns and form an opinion before a decision is made on your part. We had invited a Mr. Robert Steiner and others representing Rowland Hall St. Marks School to come to our recent School Community Council meeting to present plans and to address some of our questions,however, they did not attend. One member of a group opposed to the rezone did attend and raised additional concerns. We would like to discuss safety issues of having two high schools adjacent to each other especially on such a busy street with parking and pedestrian issues already elevated. We also wish to discuss our current lease on the cemetery property and how this will be impacted and whether or not we will be allowed the option to purchase the land we currently lease (where the football field is). We have even heard rumors that our leased piece will be purchased by them as well. Is this true? We also have concerns about open space in the area. Does the entire piece need to be rezoned? Is there is a possibility of just changing the zoning on a portion of the property to insure that the balance stays as open space? Does this sale mean that our property will be needed for cemetery plots more quickly? What other kinds of impact would occur having two high schools adjacent to each other? These and other questions have merit and we respectfully request that you postpone any decision until we have sufficient time to address these issues. Sincerely, diaoide- A/SteriC-- Mark A. Maxfield Laurence Burton Chair, East High School Community Council Acting Chair, School Improvement Council S,,„ Oil Dr. R yn Roberts Susan Allred Principal, East High School East High School PTA President To the Salt Lake City Planning Commission: RE: Petition No. 400-05-08 and Petition No. 400-05-09 Rowland Hall, In 1874 the United States government granted to the people of Salt Lake twenty acres of Fort Douglas preserve for use as a cemetery. In 1909 that acreage was increased to its present day 50 acres. Congress was quite specific in its use, i.e. use as a cemetery in perpetuity. Previous Planning Commissions have rightfully interpreted that cemetery space also acts as good open space. This designation was in fact upheld by the Tenth Circuit court of appeals in December, 1998, affirming your right to classify this property as Open Space. The petition for a change in zoning is counter to my neighborhoods best interest. It changes what is essentially public space to privately owned space. The usage changes from passive open space to traffic generating institutional uses. It destroys the intention of the city's open space plan by depriving it of one of the main elements of the Sunnyside open space corridor plan. It is one more miss- planned element that is destroying the character of our neighborhoods. This ground was essentially a gift from the U S. Government to the people of Salt Lake with Mt Olivet Association as the trustee. Now they want to profit by the sale of this property. It was set up to be a cemetery in perpetuity. If they cannot continue their mandate, the property should revert to the United States so it can be re-conveyed to another entity who can guarantee that mandate. Steve Blackham 857 South 2235 East Salt Lake City, Utah 347-1297 November 29, 2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Re: #400-05-08 Master Plan Amendment #400-05-09 Zoning Amendment I am writing to voice my opposition to (1) amending the East Bench Master Plan Future Land Use Plan from Open Space to Institutional land use and (2) rezoning the subject property Institutional rather than Open Space. Traffic Studies: The two traffic studies do not indicate that they address additional traffic surrounding "evening" and "outside normal school hours" activities such as parent-teacher conferences, school/family events and community events. At the least, the addition of"400 additional trips" and/or"preliminary increase of 18%" in automobile traffic are unacceptable so close to a residential neighborhood. I live just south of 900 South and 1700 East and drive west on 900 South (and sometimes Sunnyside Avenue) every morning on my way to work. I see a tremendous amount of traffic backed up on 900 South and Sunnyside with commuters heading towards the University of Utah, Research Park and/or the University of Utah or Primary Children's Hospitals, etc. The nearby neighborhoods do not need additional traffic. I am also in agreement with the following reports found in the Planning Staff Report: • Police Report concerns in four areas (traffic, proximity to East High School, neighborhood impact and additional patrol officers requirement); • Mayor's Open Space Advisory Committee and Open Space Land's Advisory Board- I agree with their recommendation against the requested rezoning: and • Yalecrest Community Council Report - I have attended the Council meetings and agree with the concerns expressed in the report. I agree with the recommendation by the Salt Lake City Planning Department to deny the request to amend the East Bench Master Plan and to rezone the property from Open Space to Institutional Land use. Thank you, Lisette Gibson 1764 Hubbard Avenue Salt Lake City UT 84108 Joyce, Everett From: jstrohmeyer@earthlink.net Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:37 PM To: Joyce, Everett Subject: Planning Commission: Rowland Hall School Dear Mr. Joyce, I am writing regarding the potential move of Rowland Hall Middle and Upper School. I hope you will forward my comments to the Planning Commission. I lived as a very close neighbor of Rowland Hall for 3 years (we lived at 832 South Lincoln, which is directly across the street from the middle of the school from 2000 to 2003) . The students were excellent neighbors and were an asset to the neighborhood and to local businesses. They helped their residential neighbors with an annual neighborhood clean-up and planted bulbs in our garden. I often saw the students in Great Harvest or the coffee shops after school or during their breaks. I think they added to the community financially and with a vibrant presence. I am extremely concerned about the status of the vacant building if the school were to move out. The neighborhood is already suffering a bit, and the pull-out of Rowland Hall would only continue the trend toward vacant buildings. Additionally, I strongly oppose changing the zoning at their proposed site. The zoning was created for a reason, and the desire to move to a "better" location really doesn't justify changing the zoning. I would be happy to be contacted if you would like more information. Thank you. Jolie Pollet Strohmeyer 1214 Sherman Ave 801/328-4336 (former resident of 832 South Lincoln) 1 NOV-30-2005 WED 04:50 PM RESEARCH PARK 8015817195 P. 02 Charles Evans • Mount Olivet Property -- , . e 1 71 From: "Fred Esplin" <fred.espiin c@utah.edu> To: <everett.joyce©slcgov.corn> Date: Wed, Nov 30, 2005 4:55 PM Subject: Mount Olivet Property Dear Mr. Joyce, I understand from Charles Evans that a number of parties have been making representations regarding the University of Utah's interest in the Mount Olivet property which Rowland Hall School is currently seeking to acquire. I am writing to confirm what, indeed, the University's position is with regard to this property. A number of years ago the University made a bid on the property in question, and was outbid by Rowland Hall School. Since that time we have not pursued the purchase of the property, nor do we have any plans at present to do so. Should the property become available at some point in the future for a reasonable price,we may be interested in looking into it's acquisition at that time. However,we are aware of the feelings of the neighbors about the development of this land and would, of course, take that into consideration in making such a decision. Sincerely, Fred Esplin Vice President for University Relations CC: "Charles Evans"<Charles.Evans@admin.utah.edu> November 30, 2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street To Whom it may concern This is in regard to Petition No. 400-05-08 and Petition No. 400-05-09 I would like to express my opposition to changing the re-zoning of this area. Institutionalizing this area would lead to congestion on Sunnyside. Kent Lytle 1432 Michigan Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 November 30, 2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street To Whom it may concern This is in regard to Petition No. 400-05-08 and Petition No. 400-05-09 I would like to express my opposition to changing the re-zoning of this area. Institutionalizing this area would lead to congestion on Sunnyside. e. Dorothy ytle 1432 Michigan Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Exhibit 5 Original Petitions 400-05-08 Master Plan Amendment 400-05-09 Zoning Amendment PETITION NO. d-Di-06 PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required ' i( 0. Petition delivered to Planning 4/2'k,%///°t Petition assigned to:-/Q1 y /f1c 6hAss-fie -ss yn J t i' /1�30/°3 Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date ah. c 5 Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover ////s ;�� Chronology • Property Description (marked with a post it note) /46/0 - � Affected Sidwell Numbers Included i - 09--w3- e"c)1 r0 0/, Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils 444- =y7 Mailing Postmark Date Verification `z�'G/ -* Planning Commission Minutes ' . /,04/25 -3 Planning Staff Report /21.445 Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. i 2/Via34 Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office I2/z&70 Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. EZ Ve rt,if- `J dye Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action n04 y. nl _Lj i4y7<l+> I I' Master Plan , z Amendment 1 n"iw rxw M'o' INV Date Name of Applicant Mount Olivet Cemetery Association Phone 801/159-1900 Address of Applicant c/o William H. Adams. Esa. . 170 So. Mains #1025, Salt Lake City UT E-mafl address ofApplicant wadams@ahlaw.com Cell/Fax 801/359-1980 84111 . Applicant's Interest in Subject Property Owner Name of PropertyOwner Mount Olivet Cemetery Assoc. Phone 801/359-1900 Address of Subject Property 1 ACCI Fast Sunn side Mu' Salt Lake _City_ Utah 84102 General description of the proposed Master Plan Amendment:To rezone the property as "institutional' • to permit development of the Property, including preserving two-thirds of the 13.87 acres of property as green space. Please include with the application: • 1.A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment and the exact language. Indude proposed boundaries, master plan area,and/or zoning district changes. 2.Declare why the present Master Plan requires amending. 3.A copy of the Sidwell Map or Maps. 4.Depending upon the request,the names and addresses of all property owners within four-hundred fifty(450) feet of the subject amendment area-exdusive of streets and alleys,may need to be provided. The name, address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or dearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please Include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair(s). The cost of first dass postage for each address is due at time of application. Please do not provide postage stamps. 5. A signed statement that the petitioner has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate Community Coundl(s). 6.Related materials or data supporting the application as may be determined by the Zoning Administrator: 7.Filing fee of$500.00 plus$100 for each acre over one acre,due at time of application. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition. Sidwell maps and names of property owners are available at: Salt Lake County Recorder 2001 South State Street, Room N 1600 Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 Telephone:(801)468-3391 File the complete application at: Salt Lake City Planning _ ' 451 South State Street,Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone:(801)535-7757 ! Signature of Applicant 4111 r��^-r- orauthoria9de Jul' - :arrett,/Headmaster of Rowland Hall Title daaent Page 1 of 1 OPEN Invoice#: 062005247 Salt Lake City Corporation Date: 4/25/2005 �,, y'• CED Planning Division _3' ,�z 451 South State Rm 406 N ill,' Salt Lake City UT 84111 _ •s 801-535-7757 I Received From: Prepared by: Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School Diana Hansen 720 Guardsman Way Salt Lake City, Ut 84108 Description No C. Center Object Project ctivity Amount Master Plan Amendment for the property located 1 0600100 125111 $1,700.00 at 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue. Ck. #51566 $21.09 Postage. Ck. #51635 2 0600900 1890 - TOTAL AMOUNT $1,721.09 PAYMENT TYPE CHECK Exhibit"A" (Legal Description of the Mt. Olivet Property; Outline of Mt. Olivet Property; Boundary Survey) • . w•n Any w nn.A.f9n M/Vlt Property located in Salt Lake County, Utah, and more particularly described as follows: A parcel of land being in the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 1 South,Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian and described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the ARMORY 4 LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION (the plat of which was filed in Book"2000P"of Plats at Page 282 of the Official Records of the Salt Lake County Recorder), said corner being located South 89°59'50" West 775.746 feet from the First Veterans Administration Monument, and said corner is also located North 89°59'50" East 10.60 feet from the U.S.A. Monument No. 3 in Section 9, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, and said corner is also located North 89°59'50"East 89.21 feet and North 0°02'01" West 58.20 feet from the Salt Lake City Survey Monument in the intersection of Amanda Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue, and running thence South 89°59'50" West along the North right of way line of Sunnyside Avenue 543.35 feet; thence North 0°00'l0" West 1049.71 feet; thence North 89°59'50"East 542.78 feet to the Northwest corner of said ARMORY 4 LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION (said corner is also the Northwest corner of the AMENDED PLAT OF PARCELS 2 AND 3 OF THE ARMORY 4 LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION, filed in Book "2001P"of Plats at Page 221 of the Official Records of the Salt Lake County Recorder); thence South 0°02'O1"East along the West line of said Subdivisions 1049.71 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 13.087 acres. SUBJECT TO all restrictions, reservations,rights-of-way, easements, covenants, and other conditions which may be disclosed by a record examination of title and/or a physical inspection of the Real Property. SaltLake-248474 2 0044379-00001 A 0 0 0 0 Title: Date: 04-14-2005 Scale: 1 inch=200 feet File: overall.des Tract 1: 13.087 Acres: 570061 Sq Feet:Closure=s88.1751 a 0.01 Feet: Precision=1/623639: Perimeter=3186 Feet 001/nw,9,1 s,l e 005=/n0.0201 w 5820 009=s0.0201 e 1049.71 002=/s89.5950w 775.746 006=s89.5950w 543.35 003=/n89.5950e 10.60 007=n0.0010w 1049.71 004=/n89.5050e 89.21 008=n89.5950e 542.78 Guardsman Way Buyer's Property Real Property ' Sunnyside Avenue —► Lessee (East High Football Field) Sunnyside 4--Avenue 4—North °sp .tip¢• ti ¢9e.s -1 1.rf i 'fbtlwrJ'i5 :9 - SL991 0/4 ace 9 II A" IS'3 I tl'S:_'6 NOLLO3S 1/ N''N0:1V301 Y ..1Zl K S.. z1- f(109) n- 100NOs TVN ONrlNO0 ao3 03ard3ad 1119 Noln'A10 npl N95 1*93 OM N1n99 SSS f9a ° W tlr � Y A2113W30 131'I10-1W 1-''' I ONI 1720QaD V HSIIH •we _•• WOd3 03aIn00d 38 Ol 130add TbH ONdlAtOd l ( � f0 L 1-^Oa 0M A3/�2J(1S A6VONf1013 1 100-L01-60-91 ON 7739015 89Y 6 -S zo-5§, s s 132 Y F 60 dq'EE _a 44-iig C 'o12 qQ . i-▪- d:22 =;ix ss 4“ az ;Ia. t 5- 0 _.' a ▪ i01 b 8090021 ' Ey5 5 § 15 ^ . o35 "SS.:p afrbs€ 8i1 g ;roT` v_ E5 `= $t e. k SW -g_ 5 .z , _ 5 1. gY 8-;S 9{ c� ;e�8e 7u3�'S EW95r 5_ nsSsre 36 p at3 S. Sys $zryp g .� .*f-m til.ti ##E N5,- S..m 3 & -Sm 21 5a 6908 ;Y8e8a; I. a!sl a€4 aa ii216;!:1 <^ i s;g:sia I- 6 ifi 0, DA. <I< Vld 9L1:9fG Z1B199 004 $I 1N3nnNO1l f 3f1N3AY 3UISANNf S S . _ •s93n,0f'9f4 n ONI9Y39]0 55V9 3_0S.9L69N a AID 091q `1N3NnNON — v 3_OS,69.69N r ALIO ONIgJ 310d'9NV2I ro •IZ'89 .G L'Kf — bI 1 9 6L'66S -AN < a3MOd DOOM 9f NISV9 - 3qd"SNVal N 13S0J0,01 35 005110.Ot n— 1 NO1V0 M3N0d DOOM\ NOlVe of..2,0dSNVa1 NO lY.la L'6 00.` �� .91LSLL N0 13n91 135-� '- _. - c a310.1 3M d0 54OM •gT*3 •aeeeeY s 1N3WnN0W 0SNA0y8Li1 J dV0'NIYN • 135 �3ON3i>rc3n ram:.9 0.312S oOnos d'0 SSYa9 O950 Aa 0 101 f f'ON 1N3WnNpN s'n onav SOO M5 0NWN1039 JO 1NI00 010 0nno*a30NNM 310,1 SNYal 21390d 1Y1311 2,1 ii II a 310d'SNVa1 e.0,1 1V13N 14 F i I sY ur Z4 < 9 _ (QR3y V 1 3100 VaI ^SN 613900 1V13W • 11 i 310.1 SNV8I AU.1V13n eV3 A n 0.135 000 AS 910 101 f 7 ACM 3.O9,iA N A9ON9V 900 MN NOLLYCOOSV A331.3W 310d Swill Ji1ILU -a3110d 1V13N BON'N¢1O9r:19 oxosa 649®9n9.R0M9y w•WM9r+9:3 I e r' 4 yas aC A is S a 41 b m V ' h o SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION I, Robert Byron Jones, do hereby certify that I am a registered .V�. ry land surveyor, and that I hold license no. 127636, os prescribed by ['� the laws of the State of Utah, and I have supervised a survey of 7 a )- S the following described property — «e° M 5 U_ ce W 1 Y O <0. BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION E..h 00 p 00p 0�4 ra A Parcel of land being in the Northwest Quarter of Section 9. !'Q'� 3' Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian and m W z�r described as follows: I oiv .. d Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Armory 4 Lot Minor o I °u_ Subdivision, said corner being located South 89'59' 50" West x n n p C 775.746 feet from the First Veterans Administration Monument and ii sold corner Is also located North 89'59'50" East 10.60 feet from "' o g the U.S.A.Monument No. 3 and said corner is dso located North coo a a te c<i o.a 89'59'50" East 89.21 feel and North 0'02' 01" West 58.20 feet al <Z rr from the Solt Loke City Survey Monument in the intersection of ups rij•8 <z Amanda Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue and running thence South ui L< _ 39'59' 50" West along the North right of way line of Sunnyside M< k.venue 543.35 feet; (hence North 0'00' 10" West 1049.71 feel; 'hence North 89'59'50" East 542.78 feet to the Northwest • • }A corner of said Armory 4 Lot Minor Subdivision, (said corner is also ,_ :q: the Northwest corner of the amended plat `e IC of Parcels 2& 3 of the Armory 4 Lot Minor Subdivision); thence ' ill-I ' South 0'02'Or East along the West line of said Subdivisions I.-. v •■ 1049.71 feet to the point of beginning. - IIIII II L v,talns 13.067 acres. : Off.■ I further certify that the plot correctly shows the true dimensions t of the property surveyed and of the visible improvements located hereon, and their position on the sold property, and further that 'ey wane of the visible Improvements on the above described premises x encroach upon any adjoining properties, and thot no visible improvements on adjoining properties encroach upon the above N described property, except as shown on this plat. Y I rr T� ss .4 o 0 . i` Noin ( rfl JON oS .bJ o - d " v i S r t om, t�' 6 A 6 g W U• OCC b m Z elO ul 0, U W N O } 05 j or o I k << ‘6. 0 0 ti 1 '1 m m N U < _ O ° > r o; Y b IY J~ z O 0 U o.F Z Z a00 N s 8 a m O.r W g 6 W gym ' ' r a < DI41 IA = ti z o a 6 a a. i o 9 ft SKEET Exhibit"B" (Application for Amendment to Master Plan) c..14.,t.n IdR4721 7(N)44 79-000OI O,OND H f Q- 41tP 444 T O IRK s SO' ROWLAND HALL • ST. MARKS SCHOOL Philip G. McCarthey Campus April 20, 2005 HAND DELIVERED SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 4111 Attention: Planning Division Re: Master Plan Amendment Application Dear Sirs: This Master Plan Amendment Application is being made on behalf of Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School, a Utah nonprofit corporation ("RHSM"), as agent for the Mount Olivet Cemetery Association (the "Association"), with reference to 13.087 acres of real property located west of Guardsman Way, between 500 South and Sunnyside Avenue in Salt Lake City, Utah (approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue) (as described and outlined in attached Exhibit "A,"the"Mt. Olivet Property"). The Association has authorized RHSM to prepare this petition for an amendment to the Salt Lake City East Bench Master Plan in conjunction with an application for a zoning amendment with respect to the Mt. Olivet Property. On April 10, 2003, RHSM entered into a contract with the Association to purchase the Mt. Olivet Property. The contract is subject to a number of conditions, including the re-zoning of the Mt. Olivet Property to "institutional" and the removal of the reversionary clause included in the deed held by the Association. The reversionary restriction states that, if ever the Mt. Olivet Property ceases to be used for cemetery purposes, the Mt. Olivet Property shall revert back to the ownership of the federal government. As you may know, the government generally has released such reversionary interests when property(a) is not used for the purpose specified in the reversionary clause, (b) is no longer needed by the owner, (c) is inconvenient or inappropriate for the owner's continued use and operation, (d) is needed by another entity that provides some public benefit, and/or(e) is no longer needed by the federal government or, alternatively, if there are no significant costs to the federal government in connection with the release. The Association and RHSM believe the circumstances with regard to the Mt. Olivet Property support a government release of the reversionary interest, and RHSM is prepared to 720 Guardsman Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 • phone 801.355.7485 • fax 801.363.5521 • www.rhsm.org ._• SO4ker24$474.2 0044379-0000 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 2 pursue the removal of the reversionary clause. Specifically, the Association must sell the Mt. Olivet Property in order to have sufficient funds to repair and maintain the remaining cemetery property. (In this connection, you might note that the Association has enough land, excluding the Mt. Olivet Property and the property leased to the Salt Lake City School District (immediately to the west), to provide burial space for another ninety (90) years.) The Association, in fact, cannot make needed capital improvements and perpetually maintain the cemetery, without the proceeds from the sale of the Mt. Olivet Property. However, in advance of securing the removal of this reversionary interest, the Mt. Olivet Property needs to be re-zoned"institutional" from"open space." Absent such change, the federal government will not consider any removal of the reversionary clause. To these ends, please be advised as follows: 1. Purpose for the Amendment. The goal of Salt Lake City's Open Space Plan is to conserve the natural environment, enhance open space amenities for all citizens, connect the various parts of the City to natural environments and educate the citizens on proper use of open space'. The Mt. Olivet Property, in its current fenced, unimproved state, fails to meet any of City's open space goals. RHSM's proposed use of the Mt. Olivet Property, on the other hand, involves preserving approximately two-thirds of the Mt. Olivet Property as "green space"with soccer fields and open ground, useable by the public for soccer league games, as well as for casual recreation and play (see the proposed development plans attached as Exhibit"C"). RHSM's plans involve developing playing fields initially and, later, constructing middle and upper school buildings on the northernmost portions of the Mt. Olivet Property. However, as indicated, RHSM's plans also involve preserving approximately two-thirds of the 13.087 acres as green "open" space. The public benefit RHSM proposes to provide with recreational playing fields and the overall beautification of the Mt. Olivet Property would significantly benefit Salt Lake City and the surrounding community. These uses and improvements, RHSM believes, outweigh any perceived advantages to keeping the Mt. Olivet Property in its existing fenced, unimproved "open space" condition. ' THE SALT LAKE CITY OPEN SPACE PLAN(ADOPTED BY THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 1992) .. .. ...new. nnnn��n nnnnt SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 3 Moreover, these uses are consistent with, and further, the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies(as stated above) of Salt Lake City's Open Space Plan. As noted, RHSM's proposed plans predominantly conserve the natural environment and provide open space amenities for all citizens. These proposed plans were designed and developed in a way that conforms with the overall character and harmony of the surrounding area and will have no apparent adverse affect on the adjacent properties, Indeed, as described above,the community will wholly benefit from the new amenities and the natural enhancement of this area. 2. Why the present Master Plan requires amending. As stated, rezoning of the Mt. Olivet Property as"institutional" is a condition precedent to RHSM's purchase of the Mt. Olivet Property. As such, absent such rezone,RHSM may determine not to purchase the Mt. Olivet Property. Again, if the Master Plan is amended and the Mt. Olivet Property is re-designated as "institutional,"RHSM intends to complete the purchase of the Mt. Olivet Property and, as soon as practicable, deliver a tremendous benefit to Salt Lake City and the community. In any development of the Mt. Olivet Property, RHSM will preserve approximately two-thirds of the 13.087 acres of Property as "green space,"with landscaping improvements, soccer fields and open ground, useable by the public for soccer league games, as well as for casual recreation and enjoyment. Although it may be some time before RHSM will be able to raise the money needed to build on the Mt. Olivet Property, RHSM, in the near term,hopes to be able to develop the playing fields and make other, similar improvements to the Mt. Olivet Property. 3. Master Plan Amendment Application. Attached hereto as Exhibit"B" is the application for Amendment to Master Plan. 4. Site Map and Related Information. Attached hereto as Exhibit"D" is a site map of, as part of adjacent properties, the Mt. Olivet Property. 5. Adjacent Property Owners. Attached hereto as Exhibit"E" is a list of the names and addresses of all property owners within 450 feet of the Property, mailing labels for each property owner and a check for the cost of first class postage to the same. 6. Affidavit of RHSM. Attached hereto as Exhibit"F"is an affidavit of RHSM stating that petitioner has met with and explained the proposal to the Yalecrest Community Council, pursuant to Title 2, Chapter 2.62 of the Salt Lake City Code. 7. Agent Authorization. Attached hereto as Exhibit"G" is an Agent Authorization authorizing RHSM to act on behalf of the Association. n 1.. 1 aA0A,A et nAAAlin nnnm SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 4 8. Related Materials and Data supporting this Application. Additional information included for your review include: a. Traffic Study. Attached hereto as Exhibit"H" is a Phase 1 Preliminary Traffic Study. The traffic impacts of any development near Sunnyside Avenue or Guardsman Way is a particular concern to RHSM. RHSM, like Salt Lake City and the community, takes a keen interest in the safety of children attending RHSM and those in the surrounding community. As such, RHSM hired Fehr&Peers Transportation Consultants, to prepare a preliminary study assessing the traffic impacts,based on the limited information now available, of someday relocating the middle and upper schools to.the Mt. Olivet Property. The Phase 1 preliminary traffic study for such a facility predicts only a 18% increase in automobile traffic during the peak weekday drop-off times (8:00 a.m. — 8:30 a.m.) for 170 school days annually. The rest of the day students are in school and generally are not generating additional traffic on Sunnyside Avenue or Guardsman Way. After school, students leave the campus over several hours depending on their participation in sports, clubs or other interests on campus, thus ameliorating traffic impacts. RHSM requests that the results of this study be considered in the evaluation of this application and as a reflection of RHSM's commitment to providing a positive alternative use for this Property. b. Background and Related Information. Attached as Exhibit"I" is a summary of the history of the Mt. Olivet Property and, respectively, the needs and objectives of the Association and RHSM. 9. Filing fee. Attached to this application(see Exhibit"J") is a check for the required filing fee in the amount of$1,700. Please also find enclosed, for your convenience, three (3) extra copies of this letter(with exhibits). Please call if you have any questions or need anything further in connection with this matter or otherwise. cnitr akP-'74R474 2 0044379-00001 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 5 Thank you for your consideration in these matters. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, ROWLAND HALL-ST. MARK'S SCHOOL Juli; :arrett, Acting Headmaster Enclosures cc: Ms. Paula Swaner-Sargetakis (w/encls.) Guy P. Kroesche, Esq. (w/encls.) Mr. Robert Steiner(w/encls.) Mr. Daniel Valdez, Sexton,Mount Olivet Cemetery Association(w/encls.) William H. Adams, Esq.,Mount. Olivet Cemetery Association(w/encls.) Rosemary J. Beless, Esq., Mount. Olivet Cemetery Association(w/encls.) Exhibit"C" (Proposed Development Plan—Preliminary(subject to change)) SaltLake-248474.2 0044379-00001 lir LA51 HIGF SC1-100_ FOOTS A_L HELD LLA'SED AREA 0.1114 J I 1 NEW PAVING AREA = 97,656 S.F. 107 SPACES L I !if FI! Ali !; 1 1 1 I a N� { --....___/ vwN.x I t. Q1-I N V up Oo J O OO-I I O� OOO� .« ...I �, I A A A DOOvt0 « W....,1n rr*1tn m z D �• 0oNW Z• O - 1 ti v,I N 0 C) I ,D__,m i Z { Ln MIDOLE SCHOOL 2 STORIES 27 SPACES�, ( 18375(FOOTPRINT) 36750(TOTAL) i VALLEY MENTAL HEALTH — -I--- - 1 Li ' I I =- r' mOX ! I 0 ).. , r___—,--__ 1 rXJ 6Z~ -c - �nX ` `rI m=� i I 0S V1 l i rD I I I r-i1 G70-� rI p� 1 D J 1...\J J,- i. Li I r I _ I .o + 0 r Imo.__ I I I 1i. OJARDSVA.N WA" '•. t 0) -V H zzzzz C C D D 0 A1O.m mr 5.LZAZZ �'° II wZA ,eo ., OVII O N NT I . Cr) z0 n = 2D OO OOD I N N N T(1 a r Zp T 0 r r C Exhibit"D" (Site Maps and Related Information) C C g 00Z/I Zit •••luaH Dv 1 micrvuilloid=oturNaowasi,detupsg•dvtupsa•pso•mooilapuosialo•oots•s!2ll:duti map (It, 17,k, _-,1-P ,C1'-6,._111!Le c • 4'0i.41P- l l L act zy,31_"4 '-Z o'ca"_.4 7..0-DD 07.c--, e0 kit, x 1 S0iL Allhillgili;11"-17-7- ':.------11;iii111119111-lir 9 L --.4 ...., ,.4 ci '4.)',0 gnu i•--. — Kai um- 1 1.1111 17 s , r 4 . 7.,*, i -...."' '."7•J-- ----1 _ I.... ,LEIIIIIIIIIr i ,,,:: I I 1111111 L0921,609 t . s- '-TIM °I:'4 iii _:• : 90* ZE .../...... -, ..—. (110 -1`itli IIES Z'L 092:L BE 7) ; . .-... ... 1 ••- ,-.,........— Matiiiiiiial --7M4.1e77. alnieed peltie415tH pUG691 (... -e ct ,A e• ,1-,0.111111amo m wpJ ). I:.,.r imcgre 1", / I imanT2t L124Z r''LI.OZ9V909,7- epior UlnoS / etIV; c ueue a14 i --'-77 " ii__ t•Ecz Will -mom i ueruor Isom /Z009Z 609 90 Mame ',II '''..A0Y. imelowee oiler ZINI, W -- POOct Emma IMMO dioattum l,:t0c_g',.`,1_,9L tiC. ill= z,c#1, tet \--„7/1 ., °'13.001.08 • S 009 • AD infrl lleS '11 goo ilLiiii 5:C.:`i.L V Ct7.44. r teE.4-1.1imis I 1"' ienno iunow 1 Jo 1 oged lnclino &IN Exhibit"D" (Site Maps and Related Information) SOOZ/[Z/� "'luai[��8[y�2[Qd i[azd—auz�Naa!nzaStdEUIPS dduz• usa Izsa uzoa�a[nzas/�zo oa[s sib//:d��i[ �S '�,,~ 4� �.�1, wA 4 � 4�' 1 r t ,L 1#��F�� e �l�I��I�� sri ..,.�`���II�IIIIII��IIIIlIIII� . :1111111tl= = 11��f1 11 I�I�� i l h1IllIll�il llllliiilli{art fx° i�i�illlllllllll-. IIIIIIIII I IN .it- :u 4IIllhiIIIIht I fi ItIt. --�illil lour tL I ,, i ...ice Ai!3'at;i s J G� ,'-z = xi r.{Pi pe{uE:iyEeN gm *;ti to (DUr7P)31um' o -- ueui. aH' • lCpueSuePf 43naS tn etlif J'�.` f ui'Wpt ;saM / ��� s1211.4. d�aaulun _L i� f ►•� S 009 Il;I� . el\--- 'lies .jr � �: I Ian!IO lunow lndlnp d�y� I JO 1 a°Ld Exhibit"E" (Names and Address of Adjacent Property Owners) SaltLake-248474.2 0044379-00001 PROPERTY OWNERS SURROUNDING MT. OLIVET CEMETERY PROPERTY PARCEL NUMBER 16-19-103-001 Owner Street Address Parcel6091520020000 DescriptionLotsal 3738 & 20 Ft of Maez, Christopher JD. 861 S 1400 E Lot 39 Blk 6 Douglas 844105 Wentz, Brandi A.; Jt. Salt Lake City,UT Park together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting SD Lots 38 &39 on e. 6237-2465 8784-8630, 8635, 8368 8785-8165 Herron, James L& 871 S 1400 E 16091520030000 Lots 35 & 36,Blk 6, Salt Lake City,UT Douglas Spark 5144- 84105 Sara G.;Jt. 0227 5569-2561 5883- 0346 5940-2141 Gunnell, James F. and 874 S 1400 E 16091510040000 Lots 9 & 10 Douglas Par,Blk together, Nancy H., Jt. Salt Lake City,UT 84105 with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on W.4103- 0397 4690-0084 6880- 1266 6965-0916 9023- 6571 Buxton Family 882 S 1400E 16091510050000 Lots 11 &Douglas Park2B k 7ther Ventures, LLC Salt Lake City,UT 84104 with 1/2 Vacated Alley on W 6319-0001 6504- 1271 6504-1274 6722- 2721 8160-1753 Watts, Ardean W & 660 S University St 16091010100000 BeW Cor of Lot 5 7 ftB E fr Elna B Salt Lake City,UT 9, 84102 Plat F, SLC Sur; E 120 ft;N 55 ft; W 120 ft; S 55 ft to beg. Porcher, John&Karen; 1329 E 700 S 16091010060000 Corn 7 ft E fr SW Cor Salt Lake City,UT Lot 3 Blk 9 Plat F SLC Jt. 84102 Sur E 50 ft N 125 ft W 50 ft S 125 ft to beg. Cannon, Richard N. 1331 E 700 S 16091010070000 LotCorn 3 38 ft W fr SE Cor 9 Plat F SLC Salt Lake City,UT 84 Sur W 70 ft N 125 ft E 70 ft S 125 ft to beg. ,. .. .1AOA^IA�nnAea'fo1u1(1l11 Campbell, Ruairidh 1403 E 900 South 16091520050000 Lots 31 &32 Blk 6 Salt Lake City, UT Douglas Park 5495- 84105 2934, 6023-2848 6023- 2850 6047-0669 6079- 1388 McDonald, Sydney M; 1421 E 900 S 16091520150000 Lots 28 &29 Blk 6 Tr et al. Salt Lake City, UT Douglas Park together 84105 with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on N. 6117- 1630 Goldsmith, Elizabeth 1427 E 900 S 16091520160000 Lots 26 &27,Blk 6, A. Salt Lake City, UT Douglas Park. Together 84105 with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on N. 4926- 1122 5403-1097 5547- 0236 6304-1759 6538- 0225 8269-6094 8473- 7174 8481-2689 8520- 1649 8668-9307 Smith, Joseph C. 1433 E 900 S 16091520170000 Beg at SE Cor Lot 24 Salt Lake City, UT Blk 6 Douglas Park S 84105 651\02'40"E 1.83 ft N 14' 37'16"E148.79ftS 89^57'20"W 36.21 ft to NW Cor SD Lot 24 S'Ly 138.81 ft to SW Cor SD Lot 24 th on curve to left 25.38 ft to beg also all Lot 25 SD Blk 6 together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on N. 5280- 0912 5397-1224 5689- 0052 8310-5920 8317- 0618 8321-8534 Hermance, Jonathan S. 1437 E 900 S 16091520180000 Corn at SE,Cor Lot 22 & Salt Lake City, UT Blk 6 Douglas Park N Susan M. (Jt) 84105 65^02'40" W 20 ft th on curve to left 23.55 ft N 14^37'16"E 148.79 ft N 891\57'20"E 45.82 ft S 14^22'06" W 170.4 ft the on curve to right 4.62 SaltLake-248474.2 0044379-00001 IIIIIIIIIIIIII ft to beg together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on N 5328-0020 5743-0322 5800-2157- 5857-1056 5980-1537 thru 1543 N Hans en, Larelda C & 1445 E 900 S 16091520190000 Corn ft fr^NW Cor Lot 39.32 57'20"E John C;Trs SaltLake City,UT 23 Blk 6 Douglas Park S 841105 141\22'06"W 170.4 ft E'Ly on curve to left 52.21 ft to SE Cor Lot 20 SD Blk 6 N 101\57'20"E 180.03 ft along E'Ly Line of SD Lot 20 S 89^57'20" W 32.63 ft to beg together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on N 5927-2700 5900-2702 Johns on,Robert B & 1453E 900 S 16091520200000 Lots 17 18 & 19 Blk 6 Sharen M; Jt. Salt Lake City,UT Douglas Park together 1/2 vacated alley 84105 abutting on N. 3804- 0244 6052-1433 7361- 0579 8164-2453 Curtis,Wayne S; et al. 6091520210000 Lots 15 & 16 Bik 6 Lake S City,UT Douglas Park together Salt with 1/2 vacated alley 84105 abutting on N. 3607-366. 4543-399 4543-0400 6294-2623 6302-2318 6633-1614 Shelley13 & , Camilee B & 1465 E 900 S 16091520220000 Salt Douglass Park Bogether Lake City,UT Kevin W; Jt with 1/2 vacated alley 84105 abutting on N 6165-2411 6187-2332 6564-0060 Beier, Steven G. & 1473 E 900 S 16091520230000 Lots ended Platlf 6, Crompton, Constance Salt Lake City,UT Amended P M. 84105 Cortez, Sherrie 866 S Amanda Ave 16091520270000 Lot 4 & S'Ly 23.57 ft of Salt Lake City, UT Lot 3, Blk 6, amended 84105 plat of Douglas Park 4481-151, 1910-315 & 4484-1208, 1209, 5121- 33,35 5121-0034 5525- 0403 5670-0457 7460- 2683 7468-2685 8311- 1288 Myszka, David G. 868 S Amanda Ave 16091520260000 Lots 5 &6 Blk 6, Salt Lake City, UT Douglas Park, 3812- 84105 217,5061-183 5224-0348 5373-0444 6065-1270 6216-1419 6466-1086 Doron, Linda L. 878 S Amanda Ave 16091520250000 Lot 7 &N 15 ft of Lot 8 Salt Lake City, UT Blk 6 Douglas Park 84105 together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on NW 0000-0000 5313-1190, 5501-1919, 1918, 1916 5501-1920 6055-1829 6299-2146 Anderson, Grant A & 882 S Amanda Ave. 16091520240000 The SW'Ly 10 ft of Lot Lucile H. Salt Lake City, UT 8, all Lots 9 & 10, Blk 6, 84105 Douglas Park amended, together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on NW 4692-1282 Burggraaf, Joseph & 1422 E Sunnyside 16091520060000 Lots 43 &44 Blk 6 Carol; Jt Ave Douglas Park together Salt Lake City, UT with 1/2 vacated alley butting on S & W. 8202- 0955 Mason, Steve M. & 1428 E Sunnyside 16091520070000 All of Lot 45 &the W 23 Carbaugh, Robin A; Jt Ave ft of Lot 46, Blk 6, Salt Lake City, UT Douglas Park amended. 84105 Together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on S 4733-1024 4774-1460 5408-0788 6054-2024 6086-1543 6444-255, 0257, 0259 6947-1275 SaltLake-248474 2 0044379-00001 ft of De La Cruz, John A & 1434 E Sunnyside 16091520080000 - E 2 47 &Lot 6 all Melissa,Jt. Ave. LotDouglas Park together Salt Lake City,UT with 1/2 vacated alley 84105 abutting on S. 7339-0274 8296-5184 8481-6473 8488-8418 8716-6374 Ricks,Welby W. & 1440 E Sunnyside 16091520090000 Lots 48 &Lot i 50, &the e W 8 6 Aretta N; Jt Ave ftDouglas Spark sub Salt Lake City,UT together with 1/2 vacated 84105 alley abutting on S. 4224-455 4761-1071 5873-1399 5873-1400 6277-2568 7657-2997 Hermance,Jonathan S. 1446 E. Sunnyside 16091520100000 52&W f St ft 1 of all Lot t 53 & Ave Blk 6 Douglas Spark Susan M; Jt Salt Lake City,UT together with 1/2 vacated 84105 alley abutting on S 6579- 1119, 1125 6748-2765 8386-9453 Schell,Donna M.; Tr. 1452 E Sunnyside 16091520110000 54 .5 W 3.5 ft21ot.5 53, Lot 5, all Lot Ave Blk 6,Douglas Park Salt Lake City,UT amended. Together with 84105 1/2 vacated alley abutting S. 4981-0431, 0435 6778-2520 Collins,Donald H. 1458 E Sunnyside 16091520120000 Lot 55 &N 115.54 ft of Ave Lots 56 & 57, Blk 6, Salt Lake City,UT Douglas Park 84105 Pixton,Pollyanna 1468 E Sunnyside 16091520130000 Lots 58&C 59,DtE ouglas SD Ave ParkLot 59; E 18.26 ft; S Salt Lake City,UT 391'57'20"W 98.37 ft; N 84105 50^02'40"W 7 ft; S 39^57'20" W 64.09 ft;N 501'02'40" W 7 ft;N 391\57'20" E 150.73 ft to beg 3877-0005 5696- 1359 Valley Mental Health 1535 E Sunnyside 16091260100000 Parcel 1A, Armory 4 Lot Inc. Ave Minor Sub. Salt Lake City,UT 84108 Salt Lake City 623 S Guardsman 16091270030000 Beg E R of W of Corporation Way Guardsman Wy that is Salt Lake City,UT the SW Cor of Parcel 2, 84105 Tract L, as shown on US Dept of Interior BLM Plat of Sec 4, T 1 S, R 1E, SLM, SD Pt being E 699.98 ft&N 1099.78 ft fr Fort Douglas Military Mon#3; N 0^02'01" W 160,04 ft; N 15"26'16" E 590 ft; N 44^50'52" E 202.12 ft; N 89"59'50" E 320 ft; S 0^02'01" E 1171.43 ft; S 89'59'10" W 220 ft; N 0"02'01" W 299.47 ft; S 89^59'50" W 400 ft to beg. 12.14 Ac M Or L. 6202-369 Salt Lake City 623 S Guardsman 16091270040000 Beg at apt on E R of Wy Corporation Way Guardsman Way; SD pt Salt Lake City, UT being E 699.98 ft &N 84105 1259,82 ft fr Fort Douglas Military Mnt#3 as shown on city atlas Plat# 70; N 0^02'01"W 370 ft; N 89"59'10"E 102.4 ft; S 15"26'16" W 383.87 ft to beg. 0.435 Ac M or L. 4614-0369 6202-0369 Rowland-Hall St Marks 720 S Guardsman 16091260120000 Lot 1, Armory 4 Lot School Wy Minor Sub Amd. Attn: Ms. Julie Barrett Salt Lake City, UT 84108 Saltlake-248474 2 0044379-00001 15 '30 of Utah 755 S Guardsman 16091270020000 Com S78^ & S "E University 9160.3ft Wy 89^59'S0"W 3974.283 Salt Lake City,UT ft &N 01'02'01"W 500 84105 ft fr NW Cor Sec 4 T 1 S R lE SL Mer N 0^02'01"W 300 ft N 891\59'50"E 400 ft S 01\02'01"E 300 ft S 891'59'50" W 400 ft to be . 275. Act. 10000 Parcel 1, Armory 4,Lot 160912601 Valley Mental Health 780 S Guardsman Minor Sub. 8389-8446 Inc. Wy Salt Lake City,UT 84105 Clay,Robert J. Jr. & 1328E 700 S 16091020020000 Com 177.5 ft E fr NW Salt Lake City,UT Cor Lot 5 Blk 8 Plat F Bonnie; Jt SLC Sur E 52.5 ft S 10 84102 Rds W 52.5 ft N 10 Rds to be . Matheson, Stephen D. 1338 E 700 S 16091020080000 Beg 230 ft E fr NW Cor Salt Lake City,UT Lot 5, Blk 8,Plat F, SLC & Sur; E 100 ft; S 165 ft; Teresa Y; Jt 84102 W 100 ft;N 165 ft to beg. 5225-717 6467- 2566 6467-2568 6825- 0414 Bastow,Jeffery L.; et 704 S 1300E 16082310150000 The S 23 ft Lot 28, all Salt Lake City,UT Lot 29 &N 1 ft Lot 30, al. Blk 11, Arlington Heights, 4463-549 thru 551 4463-0552 5436- 0206 Petersen, Whitney D & 720 S 1300E 16082310170000 Lots 32 &33 Blk 11 Arlington Heights Rolf; Jt Salt Lake City,UT together with 1/2 vacated 84102 alley abutting on W. 3961-0171 5988-2673 6227-0950 6436-1094 8331-0916 8356-3776 8414-4777 Madsen, Cheryl 726 S 1300 E 16082310180000 Lots 34 & 35 &N 1/2 Aka: Rauh, Cheryl A Salt Lake City, UT Lot 36, Blk 11, Arlington 84102 Heights Add. 4450-164 4450-0165-5973-1507 8922-4846 Bridges, D. Kevin & 734 S 1300 E 16082310280000 Lots 37 &38 & the S 1/2 Teena M; Jt Salt Lake City, UT of Lot 36, Blk 11, 84102 Arlington Heights sub together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting onw. 6346-2983, 2988 4625- 225, 226 5644-1984 5658-2886 6346-2989 6583-1230 Gren, Donald & Lisa 738 S 1300 E 16082310210000 Lots 39 &40 Blk 11 H; Jt Salt Lake City, UT Arlington Heights 84102 together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on W 5725-117 5725-0118 Russell, C. Thomas & 748 S 1300 E 16082310220000 Lots 41, 42 &N 10 ft of Bonnie B Salt Lake City, UT Lot 43, Blk 11,Arlington 84102 Height Sub. Together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on W. 4093-358 Felsted, Raymond K. 756 S 1300 E 16082310230000 S 15 ft of Lot 43 &all Salt Lake City, UT Lot 44 Blk 11 Arlington 84102 Heights together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on W. 6036-1457, 1459 6133-2836, 2838 6210- 1369 6387-0349 6860- 0893 8228-0926 SaltLake-248474.2 0044379-00001 Shoore, Joseph D 760 S 1300E 16082310320000 Lots 45 46 &47 Blk 11 Salt Lake City,UT Arlington Heights. Also 84102 beg SW Cor SD Lot 47; N 75 ft; S 89^57'21" W 13.99 ft; S 0"00'30"W 10 ft;N 891'57'21"E 6.49 ft; S 0'29'48"E 65.02 ft;N 91\57'21 E 6.67 ft to beg. 6387- 2059, 349 5390-955 5390-965 6387-2060 6585-1586 The First Baptist 777 S 1300 E 16091020060000 W ft of Lot 3 Blk 8 Plat Church Salt Lake City,UT F SLC Sur together with 84102 that portion of vacated street abutting SD Lot 2 on S James Webster, Chair 938 South Military Yalecrest Community Drive, Salt Lake Council City,Utah 84108 Exhibit"F" (Affidavit of RHSM) SaltLake-248474.2 0044379-00001 AFFIDAVIT OF ROWLAND HALL-ST.MARK'S SCHOOL STATE OF UTAH ) . ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ROWLAND HALL-ST. MARK'S SCHOOL, atah tonpro o2t Ch ter corporation2.62,("RHSM"), " HS Salt being first duly sworn,hereby declare and say that,pursuant Lake City Code,RHSM met with and explained lecr theest Community Council on March 2, 2005. the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association property to th This affidavit is executed at Salt Lake City,Utah on_____4gda2L—_ 2005. ROWLAND HALL-ST. MARK'S SCHOOL, a Utah nonprofit corporation B Ju i arrett, Acting Headmaster d u S v SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this la-St. Mark's S of chool, Utah nonprofit 2005 by Julie Barrett, Acting Headmaster of Rowland Hal corporation. el(A'44 C?aeci-C. Notary Public and Seal �, ), Fir,t F t.r;,n 4 •t' l i ',ai+ lake Cr v,UT ri ! x -k� I, I.A.: Commis.ion t 1 e� �eGrua�, 15 '20r,l, p ci, 1 ,r ir,r . ._ AGENT AUTHORIZATION I, WILLIAM H. ADAMS, being the President of MOUNT OLIVET CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, and MOUNT OLIVET CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, a Utah nonprofit corporation, (collectively, the "Association") the owner of the real property described in the Application for Master Plan Amendment and the Application for Zoning Amendment (collectively, the"Applications")to be submitted to Salt Lake City Planning, hereby authorize and appoint ROWLAND HALL-ST. MARK'S SCHOOL, a Utah nonprofit corporation, as the authorized agent of the Association, for all purposes and functions relating to such Applications, including without limitation, the representation of the Association before any administrative or legislative body that is considering the Applications for approval and for the filing of any reports, notices, statements or other necessary documents in connection therewith. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this agent authorization as of the date set forth below. MOUNT OLIVET CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association 4-siBy: (6�c Name: William H. Adams Its: President Dated this ay of April, 2005. MOUNT OLIVET CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, a Utah nonprofit corporation By: Name: William H. Adams Its: President Dated thil.Z ay of April, 2005. SaltLake-248474.2 0044379-00001 Exhibit"H" (Traffic Study) FEHR & PEERS - TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM Date: January 21, 2005 To: Rowland Hall-St. Mark's From: Fehr& Peers Associates, Inc. Subject: Middle and Upper Schools Relocation Phase I: Rowland Hall-St. Mark's Local Trip Generation Study UT05-590 Introduction This memorandum provides a trip generation analysis for Rowland Hall - St. Mark's Middle and Upper Schools. This initial analysis is the first phase of a two-phase study that will assess the traffic impacts of relocating these two schools from the corner of Lincoln Street and 800 South to Sunnyside Avenue at approximately 1600 East. Included in this memorandum are the results of a local trip generation study performed in January 2005. This memorandum provides a preliminary estimate of the potential traffic impacts to Sunnyside Avenue created by the relocation of the schools. The local trip generation rates reported here will be used in Phase II to provide a thorough assessment of the traffic impacts created by this relocation. Local Trip Generation Data The main purpose of this phase was to conduct a local trip generation analysis, the objective of which was to estimate the current amount of traffic generated by the middle and upper schools. The trip generation rates observed at the existing school may then be used to accurately project trip generation for the new school. Local trip generation data was collected during the morning traffic peak period, and consisted of two parts: determining the number of vehicles as a result of dropping students off, and the number of vehicles as a result of students and faculty who park their vehicles on site. The number of vehicles and persons dropped off along Lincoln Street and 800 South were counted in fifteen minute increments from 7:30 to 8:30 AM. The number of vehicles parked in the student and faculty parking lots and on the streets adjacent to the schools were also counted before and after the peak morning period. The results of the local trip generation analysis are shown in Table 1. The rate of vehicles traveling to and from the schools, including the school buses, during the peak morning period was 571 vehicles per hour (vph). Each passenger vehicle dropping off students was observed to have an average student occupancy rate of 1.2 students per vehicle. 302 West 5400 South,Suite 100,Murray,UT 84107 (801)261-4700 Fax(801)261-0763 www.fehrandpeers.com Rowland Hall-St. Mark's January 21, 2005 Page 2 of 2 TABLE 1 AM Peak Hour Local Tri' Generation Rates AM Number of AM Peak Hour Trips Trips Enrolled Trip Generation Entering Exiting Trips Land Use Students Middle &Upper Schools 486 338 233 571 Preliminary Impact Analysis Fehr & Peers performed a preliminary estimate �S Will be similar Wease in traffic expected s size to the existing schoolst Sunnyside Avenue. Because the new the projected trip generation is expected to be t same as the he an est mat c25%urrent tips torthe schools of 571 vph during the peak morning period. Howeve to currently travel on Sunnyside Avenue, and traffic already using Sunnysuld be accounted ide Avenue was calculated this street. The portion of the school travel paths from by using a list to the schools,the students and estimating probable these zip code areas upper schoolso willd Based on the trip generation rate derived Rowland Hall Stthis Mark'sdy and the middle and ve mentioned adjustment, the relocation of the generate approximately 428 new trips per hour during the morning peak period. Based on the relocation of the an schools will peak hour volume ncO vph for rease of 18%ninstrraffic.Avenue, Phase II will refine these chools will result in an approximate estimates and evaluate the impacts of increasing traffic on Sunnyside Avenue and major intersections surrounding the school. Exhibit "I" (Summary of the History of the Mt. Olivet Property, and Objectives of the Association and RHSM) SaltLake-248474.2 0044379-00001 For: RHSM Mt. Olivet Committee Open House Re: Background for RHSM Acquisition of 13.2 Acres of Land West of the McCarthey Campus Date: February 16, 2005 We understand the history of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association property west of the McCarthey Lower/Beginning School Campus as follows: In the 1870's Congress set aside land for then actual Mt.Research POarket cemetery. In the which was owned byla son y 1900's,the U.S. Government wanted to buy land of Brigham Young(Legrand Young?). (Apparently,Mr. Young did not want to sell to the U.S. Government.) Therefore, the U.S. Government arranged the purchase of the"Research Park" land by the Association. The Association then traded(for the e "Rees arr cuch Parkdission herd the theto U.Olivet Government for the land under contract to RH SProperty") and the East High playing fields just west ofzthe Mt. Olivet Property. The U.S. Government continues to hold a"reversionary interest the in Mt. Olivet tProperty, such that if it 3. ceases to be used for cemetery purposes it reverts to the U.S 2 The Reversionary Interest The United States may obtain the property back if it ceases to be used as a cemetery. Release of Reversionary Interest —� The property is not used for the purpose specified in the reversionary clause —> The owner of the property no longer needs the property - The property is inconvenient or inappropriate for the owner's use —> The property is needed by another entity that provides some public benefit - The U. S. Government doesn't need the property - No significant costs to federal, State or local governments from a release of the reversionary interest 3 The East High Playing Fields Lease Exception The East High playing fields are yCety ars P cs so long as for the lease of such property for a period of not more than 70 ea forotherthanemetery purpose such additional uses will not prevent future use for cemetery purposes. c.arr.1(P_74R474 2 0044379-00001 The Mt. Olivet Property was an alfalfa field in the early years of the Association's ownership. It was used to graze the horses necessary for cemetery work. The Association has enough space in the existing cemetery area to continue its operations for at least ninety years. The Association needs to sell the Mt. Olivet Property to be able to provide perpetual care at the cemetery. If RHSM does not purchase the Mt. Olivet Property, the Association may sell the land to the University of Utah or,presumably, will sell the Mt. Olivet Property to Larkin Mortuary or a similar operation.4 In order for RHSM to buy the Mt. Olivet Property, RHSM needs Congress to remove the "reversionary interest"the U.S. Government holds in the Mt. Olivet Property. As part of RHSM's efforts to secure the removal of the"reversionary interest"and, in that regard, to ensure the support of Utah's congressional representatives and senators, RHSM needs the support of Salt Lake City and, if at all possible, the surrounding community. RHSM believes that its ownership of the Mt. Olivet Property will deliver a net benefit to Salt Lake City and the surrounding community, both in the immediate neighborhood and more broadly. As such, RHSM believes that Salt Lake City and the surrounding community should support RHSM's efforts in this regard. The reasons are several: First, about two-thirds of the land would be turned "green"with soccer fields and open ground. Second, the long run construction of a middle and upper school building at the northern most edge of the Mt. Olivet Property would carry on the open aesthetics of the McCarthey Lower/Beginning School Campus. Third, for the first time, this land would be useable by the public for soccer league games as well as for casual recreation and play in the same manner as our current soccer field, which is used heavily by youth league soccer teams. RHSM believes that making the Mt. Olivet Property available for athletic and recreational uses, in addition to the green space through landscaping improvements, will benefit the community and Salt Lake City. These uses and improvements, RHSM believes, outweigh any advantages perceived by keeping the Mt. Olivet Property in its existing, fenced and unimproved, condition. It may be many years before RHSM could raise the money needed to build a new campus on the Mr. Olivet Property. Although that may be, ultimately, the anticipated use of the Mt. Olivet Property, it may be beyond RHSM's reach for a long time. However, it is possible that RHSM could take the (hopefully) interim step of developing the playing fields in the near term, in a way not to interfere with construction at the north end of the Mt. Olivet Property in the future. " The University of Utah does not need to obtain building permits from Salt Lake City as does RHSM,and the University is not subject to zoning controls as is RHSM. SaitLake-248474.2 0044379-00001 of any development near Sunnyside Avenue or Guardsman Way is The traffic impacts something to which RHSM would pay careful attention. RHSM, like Salt Lake City and the community,takes a keen interest in the safety of our children those at teansng RHSMtatio attending consultants, toin the surrounding community. As such,RHSM hired Fehr &Peers, toprepare a preliminary study assessing the traffic impacts,based on the limited information upper schools to the Mt. Olivet Property. now available, of someday relocating the middle and RHSM is encouraged that, during the peak time at the start of the school day,which is the only time of significant traffic impact,the approximate traffic increase 11 y are would uld onl g a y be approgeneraximately c 18%. The rest of the day students are in school andschool,g students leave the campus over several on Sunnyside Avenue or Guardsman Way After hours depending on their participation in sports, clubs or other interests on campus,thus ameliorating traffic impacts. school th the The purchase of the Association's 13.2 acres that strengthen 1 t es in thelUpper and proximity of the RHSM campuses,with the promisep Middle schools will be commensurate with those of the Beginning e r and environments.LwerSchools, and hope that the learning opportunities that necessarily will result from that the long term success of RHSM will also be viewed as ivet benefit to SaltLake City, along with the public benefit we propose to provide on the Our immediate objectives are to work cooperativelycial totth the surrounding incorporate neaghborh oo d interests nity, viewed as RHSM's neighbors, and Salt Lake City officials, ad, we need into our planning for any new and relocated RHSM campus in order to Looking f completeethe purchasetof obtain the release of the reversionary interest by early 2 the Mt. Olivet Property within the terms of our contract with the Association. s It should be noted that,at present,RHSM does not contemplate access to the Mt.Olivet Property,when improved,from Guardsman Way during the school day. 9 I 0 A'?A l MAA 10.00001 • • SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION O @n2tQ[g6 Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School INVOICE NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT• DISCOUNT NET AMOUMI CK REQ 4/21/2005 7200500 REZONING APP FEE $1,700.0( $0.00 $1,700.00 , Totals: $1,700.0( $0.00 $1,700.00 • • • • • • • • • • • • • WARNING:THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING SECURITY FEATURES:DocuCheck Security Paper,Micro Signature Line and Bleed-Through Micr Encoding Wells Fargo Bank Northwest,N.A. Rowland Hall-St.' Mark's School Rowland720 GUARDSMAN WAY • SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84108 31-297/1240 CHECK DATE I CHECK NO. 4/21/2005 51569 • CHECK AMOUNT PAY RHSM $ 1,700dols 00 cts • $**I,700.00 I . TO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION • THE • ORDER OF • ThUYI it)RIZED GN�TI rN� 005L'56911' ': i21,0029711:0 /00L3683116 • • WARNING:THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING SECURITY FEATURES:DocuCheck Security Paper,Micro Signature Line and Bleed-Through Micr Encoding Wells Fargo Bank Northwest,N.A. Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School 720 GUARDSMAN WAY SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84108 31-297/1240 CHECK DATE I CHECK NO. 4/21/2005 • 51568 CHECK AMOUNT PAY RHS M $ 110 dols 50 cts $**110.50 • • TO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION • f THE = __ _ • ORDER • -OF AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ��enr rnn..• .• . r. _ _ . • cc) o (, tel c `e In C. O ". CD p _ t. Dmcn CD O CD � v m 7 co CD 73 D o 0 mcco N can - 3 = co CD PETITION NO. a- es-,41 PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required iMis' /6V• Petition delivered to Planning Zeo 4///f f ly , - Petition assigned to: RA c a's E-vci-clY Jcx/c-e 00/of y Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date //e/.� / Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover t s_Wr 5 Chronology . Property Description (marked with a post it note) / t,4/6r __%___ Affected Sidwell Numbers Included /6 -o y/o 3 - cio 1 1/3101 _ 2 Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils -2r/Z©45b Mailing Postmark Date Verification /1/0- `'II Planning Commission Minutes ' ////oc Planning Staff Report /2� 4 Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. I Zl /‘ Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office 1 2/i 'v Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. ev‘eY-e To y c-e' Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office ^, FOR OFFICE USE ONLY .y%;,_ t•y ;Pelil Ntt �,, x ZoningAmendment •- -. , 1. ece; i,la:. AM;t. ni,M,::[-a , ' ''i,t4$ .i'_-,0 = Il��l'(-(111 �It. �� te.��.�r�iIYCY:^ - 1•�' C - Reviewed , • . I Address of Subject Property 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Mount Olivet CemeteryAssociation Ys•,'•,.;, Name of Applicant Phone 801/359-1900 l'_-�#'r:. AddressofApplkantc/o William H. Adams, Esq. , 170 S. Main, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 ' :, t E-mail address of Applicant wadams@ahlaw.com Cell/Fax 801/359-1900 i 1.. p' 3'"• Applicant's Interest in Subject Property Owner , r.•••' Name of Property Owner_Mt. Olivet Cemetery Assoc. Phone 801/359-1900 . "== County Tax Parcel#(Sidwell#) 16-09-103-001 Zoning of property Open Space 4. 1' Existing Use of Property Unimproved i�, :,' /0 Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance by amending Section: (attach map or legal description)_ it Amend the Zoning Map by reclassifying the following property: ' �� Froma pp„ spare dassification to a Institutional classification. Please include with the application: - 1.A statement of the text amendment or map amendment describing the purpose for the amendment and the , ._�,,:-.;, exact language, boundaries and zoning district. r:vt ^ 2.A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate. 3.Reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. ;. -, 4.The names and addresses of all property owners within four-hundred fifty(450)feet of the subject parcel.The name,address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or dearly printed on gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. The cost of first class - postage for each address is due at time of application. Please do not provide postage stamps. 5.Legal description of the property. 6.Ten(10)copies of site plans drawn to scale. ,'"• ' 7. A signed statement that the petitioner has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate Community - Council. - 8.Related materials or data supporting the application as may be determined by the Zoning Administrator. I 4 Filing fee of$500.00 plus$100 for each acre over one acre is due at the time of application. • If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of - the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition. : -•! Sidwell maps and names of property owners are available at: , 1 Salt Lake County Recorder 2001 South State Street,Room N1600 ! Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 • Telephone:(801)468-3391 q�"i File the complete application at: •1 Salt Lake City Planning 451 South State Street,Room 406 `f Salt Lake City, UT 84111 ' ,• A 0 Telephone:(801)535-775 6-A4i-aY .- Signature of Applicant orautho►fzedagent Julie B eAtct'ing Ffc9s admaster of Rowland Hall—St. 'School Page 1 of 1 OPEN Salt Lake City Corporation Invoice#: 062005246 y'••. CED Planning Division Date: 4/25/2005 �.' `x, 451 South State Rm 406 =cn -= fi,M= Salt Lake City UT 84111 801-535-7757 GIs„ ',•,,.,,, Received From: Prepared by: Rowland Hall - St. Mark's School Diana Hansen 720 Guardsman Way Salt Lake City, Ut 84108 Description No C. Center Object Project Activity Amount Is requesting a Zoning Amendment to reclassify the property located at 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue from an Open Space classification to an 1 0600100 125111 - - $1,700.00 Institutional classification. Ck. #51569 Postage. Ck. #51634 2 0600900 1890 - - $21.09 TOTAL AMOUNT $1,721.09 PAYMENT TYPE CHECK Exhibit"A" (Legal Description of the Mt. Olivet Property; Outline of Mt. Olivet Property;Boundary Survey) . ...on.a A.A'70_fNx101 Property located in Salt Lake County, Utah, and more particularly described as follows: A parcel of land being in the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian and described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the ARMORY 4 LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION(the plat of which was filed in Book "2000P" of Plats at Page 282 of the Official Records of the Salt Lake County Recorder), said corner being located South 89°59'50"West 775.746 feet from the First Veterans Administration Monument, and said corner is also located North 89°59'50"East 10.60 feet from the U.S.A. Monument No. 3 in Section 9, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, and said corner is also located North 89°59'S0"East 89.21 feet and North 0°02'O1" West 58.20 feet from the Salt Lake City Survey Monument in the intersection of Amanda Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue, and running thence South 89°59'50"West along the North right of way line of Sunnyside Avenue 543.35 feet; thence North 0°00'10"West 1049.71 feet; thence North 89°59'50"East 542.78 feet to the Northwest corner of said ARMORY 4 LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION(said corner is also the Northwest corner of the AMENDED PLAT OF PARCELS.2 AND 3 OF THE ARMORY 4 LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION, filed in Book "2001P"of Plats at Page 221 of the Official Records of the Salt Lake County Recorder); thence South 0°02'O1"East along the West line of said Subdivisions 1049.71 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 13.087 acres. SUBJECT TO all restrictions, reservations, rights-of-way, easements, covenants, and other conditions which may be disclosed by a record examination of title and/or a physical inspection of the Real Property. SaltLake-248713.2 0044379-00001 I 0 0 Title: I Date: 04-14-2005 Scale: 1 inch=200 feet 'File: overall.des Tract 1: 13.087 Acres: 570061 Sq Feet:Closure=s88.175 le 0.01 Feet: Precision=1/623639: Perimeter=3186 Feet 001=/nw,9,1s,1e 005=/n0.0201w 5820 009s0.0201e 1049.71 002=/s89.5950w 775.746 006=s89.5950w 543.35 003=/n89.5950e 10.60 007=n0.0010Nv 1049.71 004=/n89.5050e 89.21 008=n89.5950e 542.78 ------------- ----------------------------------—_ Guardsman Way Buyer's Property Real Property Sunnyside Avenue —► Lessee (East High Football Field) Sunnyside F—Avenue <—North Exhibit"B" (Application for Amendment to Zoning Designation) y�kK,s SLR ROWLAND HALL • ST. MARK'S SCHOOL Philip G. McCarthey Campus April 20, 2005 HAND DELIVERED SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Attention: Planning Division Re: Zoning Amendment Application Dear Sirs: This Zoning Amendment Application is being made on behalf of Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School, a Utah nonprofit corporation ("RHSM"), as agent for the Mount Olivet Cemetery Association (the "Association"), with respect to property located west of Guardsman Way, between 500 South and Sunnyside Avenue in Salt Lake City, Utah (approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue) (as described and outlined in attached Exhibit "A,"the "Mt. Olivet Property"). This letter constitutes a petition for an amendment to the zoning designation applicable to the Mt. Olivet Property and, further, is being made in conjunction with a Master Plan Amendment Application for the Mt. Olivet Property. On April 10, 2003, RHSM entered into a contract with the Association to purchase the Mt. Olivet Property. The contract is subject to a number of conditions, including the re-zoning of the Mt. Olivet Property to "institutional" and the removal of the reversionary clause included in the deed held by the Association. The reversionary restriction states that, if ever the Mt. Olivet Property ceases to be used for cemetery purposes, the Mt. Olivet Property shall revert back to the ownership of the federal government. As you may know, the government generally has released such reversionary interests when property (a) is not used for the purpose specified in the reversionary clause, (b) is no longer needed by the owner, (c) is inconvenient or inappropriate for the owner's continued use and operation, (d) is needed by another entity that provides some public benefit, and/or(e) is no longer needed by the federal government or, alternatively, if there are no significant costs to the federal government in connection with the release. The Association and RHSM believe the circumstances with regard to the Mt. Olivet Property support a government release of the reversionary interest and RHSM is prepared to pursue the removal of the reversionary clause. Specifically, the Association must sell the Mt. 720 Guardsman Way Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 • phone 801.355.7485 • fax 801.363.5521 • www.rhsm.org Sal tLake-248713.2 0044379-60001 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 2 Olivet Property in order to have sufficient funds to repair and tion has enough land remaining excluding cemetery property. (In this connection, you might note that the Associaict the Mt. Olivet Property and the property leased to the Salt Lake City School District The p (immediately to the west), to provide burial space for another ninety(90)e years.)maintain the Association, in fact, cannot make needed capital improvements and perpetually cemetery,without the proceeds from the sale of the Mt. Olivet Property. However, in advance of securing the'removal of this arcever reversionary e." Absent such change,interest, the t. Olivet Property needs to be re-zoned"institutional" from ofpen he reversionary clause. federal government will not consider any rem To these ends,please be advised as follows: 1. Purpose for the Amendment. The Property's zoning g designation was enacd changed Lake City n from"institutional"to "open space"pursuant to a Salt 1995. This petition seeks the reinstatement of the institutional oning operatiesignang deficitst and is unable ion. It is a fenced lot in an unimproved condition. The Association has substantial pY to appropriately maintain the Mt. Olivet Property. As statede e a lve,t th nett'(cAssocia yea has enough land in the existing cemetery area to provide burial spa However, as also indicated, the Association will not be able to make needed capital improvements and perpetually maintain the cemetery unless the Mn g t. Olivet of to Property rerope$3y is sold. o. The Association needs to sell the Mt. Olivet Property to fund the required infrastructure improvements and to provide perpetual care for the remaining cemetery property. Accordingly, on April 10, 2003,the Association entered into a contract with RHSM to sell the Mt. Olivet Property. The contract is conditioned on the zoning designation being reinstated as institutional. 2. Description of the Proposed_Use. RHSM's proposed use of Property involves preserving approximately two-thirds of the Mt. Olivet Property as open"green space"with soccer fields and open ground, useable by the public developmcer ent attached as ue Exh'b t well `C."for More casual recreation and play. See the proposed plansp specifically,RHSM's proposed plans involve developing playing fields initially and, at some time in the future, constructing middle and upper schoo buildings on ns the of the northernmo 13.0 78 st poesrtions of the Mt. Olivet Property, while preserving approximately green"open" space. The public benefit RHSM proposes to provide with recreational playing fields and the overall beautification of the Mt. Olivet Property would significantly benefit Salt Lake City and SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 3 the surrounding community. These uses and improvements, RHSM believes, outweigh any perceived advantages to keeping the Mt. Olivet Property in its existing fenced, unimproved "open space" condition. 3. Reasons why the Present Zoning is Inappropriate. The goal of Salt Lake City's Open Space Plan is to conserve the natural environment, enhance open space amenities for all citizens, connect the various parts of the City to natural environments and educate the citizens on proper use of open space'. The Property, in its current fenced, unimproved state, fails to meet any of the City's open space goals. The Association is unable to properly maintain this land and needs to sell the Mt. Olivet Property to make needed capital improvements and perpetually maintain the cemetery. RHSM's proposed use of the Mt. Olivet Property, on the other hand, involves preserving approximately two-thirds of the Mt. Olivet Property as "green space"with soccer fields and open ground, useable by the public for soccer league games as well as for casual recreation and play (see the proposed development plans attached as Exhibit "C"). As indicated, RHSM's proposed plans involve developing playing fields initially and, later, constructing middle and upper school buildings at the northernmost edge of the Mt. Olivet Property. However, RHSM's plans also involve preserving approximately two-thirds of the 13.087 acres as green "open" space. Moreover, RHSM's proposed plans are consistent with, and further, the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies (as stated above) of Salt Lake City's Open Space Plan. As noted, RHSM's proposed plans predominantly conserve the natural environment and provide open space amenities for all citizens. These proposed plans were designed and developed in a way that conforms with the overall character and harmony of the surrounding area and will have no apparent adverse affect on the adjacent properties. Indeed, as described above, the entire community will benefit from the new amenities and the natural enhancement of this area. RHSM is committed to keeping two-thirds of the Mt. Olivet Property as green space, but RHSM's plans require the Mt. Olivet Property be returned to an institutional zoning designation. Other prospective buyers of the Mt. Olivet Property are not likely to be as committed to keeping so much of the Mt. Olivet Property designated as green space nor are they as advanced in negotiations with the Association or in formulating plans for the Mt. Olivet Property. 4. Zoning Amendment Application. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is RHSM's Zoning Amendment Application for the Mt. Olivet Property. ' THE SALT LAKE CITY OPEN SPACE PLAN(ADOPTED BY THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 1992) SaltLake-248713.2 0044379-00001 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 4 5. Site Map and Related Information. Attached hereto as Exhibit"D" is a site map of, as part of adjacent properties,the Mt. Olivet Property. 6. Adjacent Property O� wners. Attached hereto as Exhibit"E" is a list of the names and addresses of all property owners within 450 offir st t f thecl s . Olivet eto the Property, mailing labels for each property owner and a check for the cost7. Agent Authorization. Attached hereto as Exhibit"F" is an Agent Authorization authorizing RHSM to act on behalf of the Association. 8. Affidavit of RHSM. Attached hereto as Exhibit"G" is an affidavit of RHSM unity stating that petitioner has met with and explained to the Yalecrest to Title 2, Chapter 2.62 of the Sa t Lake City Code. the proposed zoning amendment,pursuant 9. Related Materials and Data supporting this Application. Additional information included for your review include: a. Traffic Study. Attached hereto hSunnyside Ait"H" is avenue o Guardsman Way Traffic is a Study. The traffic impacts of any development near particular concern to RHSM. RHSM, like Salt Lake City and the community, takes a keen interest in the safety of children attending RHSM and those in the surrounding community. As such, RHSM hired Fehr&Peers Transportation Consultants, to prepare a preliminary study assessing the traffic impacts, based on the limited information now available, of someday relocating the middle and upper schools to the Mt. Olivet Property. The Phase 1 preliminary traffic study for such a facility predicts only a 18% increase in automobile traffic during the peak weekday drop-off times(8:00 a.m. �a8:30 a.m.) for genera school ting addrtaonays annually. affic on Sunnys dnthe day students are in school and generally g Avenue or Guardsman Way. After school, students leave the campus over several hours depending on their participation in sports, clubs or other interests on campus, thus ameliorating traffic impacts. RHSM requests that the results of this study be considered in the evaluation of this application and as a reflection of RHSM's commitment to providing a positive alternative use for this Property. b. Background and Related Information. Attached as Exhibit"I" is a summary of the history of the Mt. Olivet Property and, respectively, the needs and objectives of the Association and RHSM. 10. Filing fee. Attached to this application(see Exhibit"J") is a check fort e required filing fee in the amount of$1,700. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING April 20, 2005 Page 5 Please find enclosed, for your convenience, three (3) extra copies of this letter(with exhibits), together with ten (10) copies of the proposed site plans, drawn to scale. Please call if you have any questions or need anything further in connection with this matter or otherwise. Thank you for your consideration in these matters. Sincerely, R AND HALL-ST. MARK'S SCHOOL Juli arrett, Acting Headmaster Enclosures cc: Ms. Paula Swaner-Sargetakis (w/encls.) Guy P. Kroesche, Esq. (w/encls.) Mr. Robert Steiner(w/encls.) Mr. Daniel Valdez, Sexton, Mount. Olivet Cemetery Association (w/encls.) William H. Adams, Esq., Mount Olivet Cemetery Association (w/encls.) Rosemary J. Beless, Esq., Mount Olivet Cemetery Association (w/encls.) SaltLake-248713.2 0044379-00001 Exhibit"C" (Proposed Development Plan—Preliminary(subject to change)) cacti ake-248713 2 0044379-00001 'I J' 'll LL� � aZ O a<V1§�VVpSo V1 t/f b^j^^O 0�p I U it �� of �; Z' �' J lvElQw a a o�in o zzz z � 0 L� r � l,-- VJ • • _ 2 ._� 4. Yc .. .FCr f "d$ t.: • L = 23 6 •Nm s ''- ,.' r ,q-.- 7�'p I H -, _ '�.., ue CO1 ".-ys_'•-es8 _ • t lyj f . -v J f. t � W A-in "m� 'M d t{ S Z .7 t ` d E 3 y' Y" f n T ca H1l23H 1VIN3W A311VA -- — a - - - pYVttt � .��"� }atr$.� -Zf 3y?Y - ic.^� ,;,5. "',n v`'ai � t'._ 6 a ?S`+e-D"'3F#'eN�..'-6`5 xn �' 4ty. t 'C �,000-' ro�'e i .t`t' yt i r _ ... r tt ,may x}+ d' tr°" f11 g2 2 4 '"�t'S,}' "i4 `?`*J 1� J i 1' M r,.r ,�'rt r- t - r rt;tq} k t c V32iV O3SV31 - 01313 11V81O03 100HOS HOIH 1SV3 Exhibit"D" (Site Maps and Related Information) Map Output Page 1 of 1 ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map 11- —60P47900 h 1F y 600 S A.i �‘V tY t] 02. nut3527•1 ingt 1F 215 14 1604353001 = 16054530UT 16 4376 04 1F " - 5'z'06 _ Wet_ 61Ia ' 161�4J•2009 1609126002 Westlof tr' 160548201 .1607,-35e''' Soto h JOrtla W 4eL• L!}i alY9ifyli' ,15 el c, 1 •*1 nip+ eu 13 ;,at , Legend IN Highlighted Feature ==1 ®1s _ = !s8 21160910200' k— - 18 1609126012 �®:2� 150910200: 6 160911 800 S I16C�q Y4001 60912601 ---4+81 dam•-.'� E 0 9151 1 49126110 — 00 `---__60915100 `-ate I. —ten ���5:lIL '.PsitE..'"�` �,y. 74 d i �Ib�r��2 I II)I II 16082`''C►32 0,t�b+ Ip fi'. �.41•..E0k3le}e'6 , 10 li,08282! » �r3 4 'ld } I � '�ti !,`ta:4;1 Y '+ - AI ,� •ifStP7UlmCowryRender•Ccrynitr{CF202 vik R5:i0is _..; %i•._ Exhibit"E" (Names and Addresses of Adjacent Property Owners) SaltLake-248713.2 0044379-00001 PROPERTY OWNERS SURROUNDING MT. OLIVET CEMETERY PROPERTY PARCEL NUMBER 16-19-103-001 Owner Street Address Parcel Number Legal Description Maez, Christopher JD. 861 S 1400 E 16091520020000 Lots 37 38 & S 20 Ft of Wentz, Brandi A.; Jt. Salt Lake City, UT Lot 39 Blk 6 Douglas 84105 Park together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting SD Lots 38 & 39 on e. 6237- 2465 8784-8630, 8635, 8368 8785-8165 Herron, James L & Sara 871 S 1400 E 16091520030000 Lots 35 & 36, Blk 6, G.; Jt. Salt Lake City, UT Douglas Spark 5144- 84105 0227 5569-2561 5883- 0346 5940-2141 Gunnell, James F. and 874 S 1400 E 16091510040000 Lots 9 & 10 , Blk 7, Nancy H., Jt. Salt Lake City, UT Douglas Park, together 84105 with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on W. 4103- 0397 4690-0084 6880- 1266 6965-0916 9023- 6571 Buxton Family 882 S 1400 E 16091510050000 Lots 11 & 12 Blk 7 Ventures, LLC Salt Lake City, UT Douglas Park Together 84104 with 1/2 Vacated Alley on W 6319-0001 6504- 1271 6504-1274 6722- 2721 8160-1753 Watts, Ardean W & 660 S University St 16091010100000 Beg 125 ft N& 7 ft E fr Elna B Salt Lake City, UT SW Cor of Lot 3, Blk 9, 84102 Plat F, SLC Sur; E 120 ft; N 55 ft; W 120 ft; S 55 ft to beg. Porcher, John & Karen; 1329 E 700 S 16091010060000 Corn 7 ft E fr SW Cor Jt. Salt Lake City, UT Lot 3 Blk 9 Plat F SLC 84102 SurE50ftN125ftW50 ftS 125fttobeg. Cannon, Richard N. 1331 E 700 S 16091010070000 Com 38 ft W fr SE Cor Salt Lake City, UT Lot 3 Blk 9 Plat F SLC 84 Sur W 70 ft N 125 ft E 70 ftS 125 ft to beg. SaltLake-248713.2 0044379-00001 Campbell, Ruairidh 1403 E 900 South 16091520050000 Lots 31 &32 Blk 6 Salt Lake City,UT Douglas Park 5495-2934, 84105 6023-2848 6023-2850 6047-0669 6079-1388 McDonald, Sydney M; 1421 E 900 S 16091520150000 Lots 28 &29 Blk 6 Tr et al. Salt Lake City,UT Douglas Park together 84105 with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on N. 6117-1630 Goldsmith, Elizabeth 1427 E 900 S 16091520160000 Lots 26 &27,Blk 6, A. Salt Lake City,UT Douglas Park. Together 84105 with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on N. 4926-1122 5403-1097 5547-0236 6304-1759 6538-0225 8269-6094 8473-7174 8481-2689 8520-1649 8668-9307 Smith, Joseph C. 1433 E 900 S 16091520170000 Beg at SE Cor Lot 24 Blk Salt Lake City,UT 6 Douglas Park S 84105 65^02'40"E 1.83 ft N 14^37'16"E 148.79 ft S 89^57'20"W 36.21 ft to NW Cor SD Lot 24 S'Ly 138.81 ft to SW Cor SD Lot 24 th on curve to left 25.38 ft to beg also all Lot 25 SD Blk 6 together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on N. 5280-0912 5397-1224 5689-0052 8310-5920 8317-0618 8321-8534 SaltLake-248713.2 0044379-00001 Hermance, Jonathan S. 1437 E 900 S 16091520180000 Corn at SE Cor Lot 22 & Salt Lake City, UT Blk 6 Douglas Park N Susan M. (Jt) 84105 651'02'40"W 20 ft th on curve to left 23.55 ft N 141'37'16"E 148.79 ft N 89^57'20"E 45.82 ft S 14^22'06"W 170.4 ft the on curve to right 4.62 ft to beg together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on N 5328-0020 5743-0322 5800-2157-5857-1056 5980-1537 thru 1543 Hansen, Larelda C & 1445 E 900 S 16091520190000 Corn N 89057'20"E John C; Trs Salt Lake City, UT 39.32 ft fr NW Cor Lot 84105 23 Blk 6 Douglas Park S 14^22'06"W 170.4 ft E'Ly on curve to left 52.21 ft to SE Cor Lot 20 SD Blk 6 N 101'57'20"E 180.03 ft along E'Ly Line of SD Lot 20 S 89^57'20"W 32.63 ft to beg together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on N 5927-2700 5900-2702 Johnson, Robert B & 1453 E 900 S 16091520200000 Lots 17 18 & 19 Blk 6 Sharen M; Jt. Salt Lake City, UT Douglas Park together 84105 with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on N. 3 804-0244 6052-1433 7361-0579 8164-2453 Curtis, Wayne S; et al. 1461 E 900 S 6091520210000 Lots 15 & 16 Blk 6 Salt Lake City, UT Douglas Park together 84105 with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on N. 3607-366. 4543-399 4543-0400 6294-2623 6302-2318 6633-1614 Shelley, Camilee B & 1465E 900 S 16091520220000 Lots 13 & 14 Blk 6 Kevin W; Jt Salt Lake City,UT Douglas Park together 84105 with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on N 6165-2411 6187-2332 6564-0060 Beier, Steven G. & 1473E 900 S 16091520230000 Lots 11 & 12 Blk 6, Amended Plat of Douglas Crompton, Constance Salt Lake City,UT Park M. 84105 ft Cortez, Sherrie 866 S Amanda Ave 16091520270000 Lot t 3,Bllc 6, amended 23.57 dof Salt Lake City,UT plat of Douglas Park 84105 4481-151, 1910-315 & 4484-1208, 1209, 5121- 33,35 5121-0034 5525- 0403 5670-0457 7460- 2683 7468-2685 8311- 1288 Myszka,David G. 868 S Amanda v 16091520260000 D isu 5 6P Blk 6,12- 81t City, 217,5061-183 5224-0348 8441055 5373-0444 6065-1270 6216-1419 6466-1086 Doron, Linda L. 878 S Amanda Ave 16091520250000 Lot 6 Douglas P k of 8 Salt Lake City,UT Blk 84105 together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on NW 0000-0000 5313-1190, 5501-1919, 1918, 1916 5501-1920 6055-1829 6299-2146 Anderson, Grant A & 882 S Amanda UTAve.e 16091520240000 8 all Lots 9 & OoB Lot Lucile H. Salt Lake City, 84105 Douglas Park amended, together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on NW 4692-1282 Burggraaf, Joseph& 1422 E Sunnyside 16091520060000 Douglas Park lk 6 Carol; Jt Ave together Salt Lake City,UT with 1/2 vacated alley butting on S &W. 8202- 0955 Mason, Steve M. & 1428 E Sunnyside 16091520070000 All of Lot 45 &the W 23 Carbaugh, Robin A; Jt Ave ft of Lot 46, Blk 6, Salt Lake City, UT Douglas Park amended. 84105 Together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on S 4733-1024 4774-1460 5408-0788 6054-2024 6086-1543 6444-255, 0257, 0259 6947-1275 De La Cruz, John A & 1434 E Sunnyside 16091520080000 E 2 ft of Lot 46 & all Melissa, Jt. Ave. Lots 47 &48 Blk 6 Salt Lake City, UT Douglas Park together 84105 with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on S. 7339-0274 8296-5184 8481-6473 8488-8418 8716-6374 Ricks, Welby W. & 1440 E Sunnyside 16091520090000 Lots 48 & 50, & the W 8 Aretta N; Jt Ave ft of Lot 51, Blk 6 Salt Lake City, UT Douglas Spark sub 84105 together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on S. 4224- 455 4761-1071 5873- 1399 5873-1400 6277- 2568 7657-2997 Hermance, Jonathan S. 1446 E. Sunnyside 16091520100000 E 17 ft of Lot 51 all Lot & Ave 52 & W 21.5 ft of Lot 53 Susan M; Jt Salt Lake City, UT Blk 6 Douglas Spark 84105 together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on S 6579- 1119, 1125 6748-2765 8386-9453 Schell, Donna M.; Tr. 1452 E Sunnyside 16091520110000 E 3.5 ft Lot 53, all Lot 54 Ave & W 21.5 ft Lot 55, Blk Salt Lake City, UT 6, Douglas Park 84105 amended. Together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting S. 4981-0431, 0435 6778-2520 Collins, Donald H. 1458E Sunnyside 16091520120000 N 115.54 ft of E 3.5 ft of Ave Lot 55 &N 115.54 ft of Salt Lake City, UT Lots 56 & 57, Blk 6, 84105 Douglas Park SaltLake-248713.2 0044379-00001 Pixton,Pollyanna 1468 E Sunnyside 16091520130000 - Lots 58 & 59,Douglas Ave Park & Com at E Cor SD Salt Lake City,UT Lot 59; E 18.26 ft; S 84105 39^57'20" W 98.37 ft; N 50^02'40"W 7 ft; S 39^57'20" W 64.09 ft; N 501'02'40"W 7 ft; N 39^57'20"E 150.73 ft to beg 3877-0005 5696- 1359 Valley Mental Health 1535 E Sunnyside 16091260100000 Parcel 1A, Armory 4 Lot Inc. Ave Minor Sub. Salt Lake City,UT 84108 Salt Lake City 623 S Guardsman 16091270030000 Beg E R of W of Corporation Way Guardsman Wy that is the Salt Lake City,UT SW Cor of Parcel 2,Tract 84105 L, as shown on US Dept of Interior BLM Plat of Sec 4, T 1S, R 1E, SLM, SD Pt being E 699.98 ft &N 1099.78 ft fr Fort Douglas Military Mon #3; N 01'02'O1" W 160,04 ft; N 151'26'16"E 590 ft; N 44^50'52"E 202.12 ft; N 891'59'50" E 320 ft; S 0^02'01"E 1171.43 ft; S 89^59'10"W 220 ft;N 01\02'01" W 299.47 ft; S 89^59'50" W 400 ft to beg. 12.14 Ac M Or L. 6202-369 Salt Lake City 623 S Guardsman 16091270040000 Beg at apt on E R of Wy Corporation Way Guardsman Way; SD pt Salt Lake City, UT being E 699.98 ft&N 84105 1259,82 ft fr Fort Douglas Military Mnt #3 as shown on city atlas Plat# 70; N 01'02'01" W 370 ft; N 89^59'10" E 102.4 ft; S 15^26'16" W 383.87 ft to beg. 0.435 Ac M or L. 4614-0369 6202-0369 Rowland-Hall St Marks 720 S Guardsman 16091260120000 Lot 1, Armory 4 Lot School Wy Minor Sub Amd. Attn: Ms. Julie Barrett Salt Lake City, UT 84108 University of Utah 755 S Guardsman 16091270020000 Corn S 42^15'30" E Wy 9160.378 ft & S Salt Lake City, UT 89^59'50" W 3974.283 ft 84105 &N 0^02'01" W 500 ft frNW Cor Sec 4T1SR lE SL Mer N 0^02'01" W 300 ft N 89^59'50" E 400ftS0^02'01" E300 ft S 89^59'50" W 400 ft to beg. 275. Act. Valley Mental Health 780 S Guardsman 16091260110000 Parcel 1, Armory 4, Lot Inc. Wy Minor Sub. 8389-8446 Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Clay, Robert J. Jr. & 1328 E 700 S 16091020020000 Corn 177.5 ft E fr NW Bonnie; Jt Salt Lake City, UT Cor Lot 5 Blk 8 Plat F 84102 SLC Sur E 52.5 ft S 10 Rds W 52.5 ft N 10 Rds to beg. Matheson, Stephen D. 1338 E 700 S 16091020080000 Beg 230 ft E fr NW Cor & Salt Lake City, UT Lot 5, Blk 8, Plat F, SLC Teresa Y; Jt 84102 Sur; E 100 ft; S 165 ft; W 100 ft; N 165 ft to beg. 5225-717 6467-2566 6467-2568 6825-0414 caul alr._74R7117 nnad174_nnnni Bastow,Jeffery L.; et 704 S 1300 E 16082310150000 The S 23 ft Lot 28, all al. Salt Lake City,UT Lot 29 &N 1 ft Lot 30, Blk 11, Arlington Heights, 4463-549 thru 551 4463-0552 5436- 0206 Petersen, Whitney D & 720 S 1300 E 16082310170000 Lots 32 & 33 Blk 11 Rolf; Jt Salt Lake City,UT Arlington Heights 84102 together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on W. 3961-0171 5988-2673 6227-0950 6436-1094 8331-0916 8356-3776 8414-4777 Madsen, Cheryl 726 S 1300 E 16082310180000 Lots 34 & 35 &N 1/2 Aka: Rauh, Cheryl A Salt Lake City,UT Lot 36, Blk 11, Arlington 84102 Heights Add. 4450-164 4450-0165-5973-1507 8922-4846 Bridges,D. Kevin & 734 S 1300 E 16082310280000 Lots 37 &38 &t 36, Blk 11 the S 1/2 Teena M; Jt Salt Lake City,UT 1, 84102 Arlington Heights sub together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting onw. 6346- 2983, 2988 4625-225, 226 5644-1984 5658- 2886 6346-2989 6583- 1230 Gren, Donald &Lisa H; 738 S 1300 E 16082310210000 Lots Arlington Heights k 84102Jt Salt Lake City,UT 84102 together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on W 5725-117 5725-0118 Russell, C. Thomas & 748 S 1300 E 16082310220000 Lots 41, 42 &N 10 ft of Bonnie B Salt Lake City, UT Lot 43, Blk 11, Arlington 84102 Height Sub. Together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on W. 4093-358 SaltLake-248713.2 0044379-00001 Felsted, Raymond K. 756 S 1300 E 16082310230000 S 15 ft of Lot 43 & all Salt Lake City, UT Lot 44 Blk 11 Arlington 84102 Heights together with 1/2 vacated alley abutting on W. 6036-1457, 1459 6133-2836, 2838 6210- 1369 6387-0349 6860- 0893 8228-0926 Shoore, Joseph D 760 S 1300 E 16082310320000 Lots 45 46 & 47 Blk 11 Salt Lake City, UT Arlington Heights. Also 84102 beg SW Cor SD Lot 47; N75 ft; S89^57'21"W 13.99 ft; S 0^00'30" W 10 ft; N 89057'21"E 6.49 ft; S 0^29'48"E 65.02 ft; N 9^57'21 E 6.67 ft to beg. 6387-2059, 349 5390-955 5390-965 6387-2060 6585-1586 The First Baptist 777 S 1300 E 16091020060000 W 19 Rds of Lot 2 & S Church Salt Lake City, UT 70 ft of Lot 3 Blk 8 Plat F 84102 SLC Sur together with that portion of vacated street abutting SD Lot 2 on S James Webster, Chair 938 South Military Yalecrest Community Drive, Salt Lake Council City, UT 84108 SaltLake-248713 2 0044379-00001 Exhibit"F" (Agent Authorization of Mount Olivet Cemetery Association) Saltlake-248713.2 0044379-00001 AGENT AUTHORIZATION I, WILLIAM H. ADAMS, being the President of MOUNT OLIVET CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, and MOUNT OLIVET CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, a Utah nonprofit corporation, (collectively, the "Association")the owner of the real property described in the Application for Master Plan Amendment and the Application for Zoning Amendment (collectively, the"Applications") to be submitted to Salt Lake City Planning, hereby authorize and appoint ROWLAND HALL-ST. MARK'S SCHOOL, a Utah nonprofit corporation, as the authorized agent of the Association, for all purposes and functions relating to such Applications, including without limitation, the representation of the Association before any administrative or legislative body that is considering the Applications for approval and for the filing of any reports, notices, statements or other necessary documents in connection therewith. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this agent authorization as of the date set forth below. MOUNT OLIVET CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association By: _Ji/IGGCh� Name: William H. Adams Its: President Dated this day of April, 2005. MOUNT OLIVET CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, a Utah nonprofit corporation : �� BY r �) /,L1� �t�ti?�2sO � Name: William H. Adams Its: President Dated thi ,day of April, 2005. SaltLake-24871 3.2 0044379-00001 Exhibit"G" (Affidavit of RHSM) o..l•r•Lo 1e5t711 7.0044379-00001 AFFIDAVIT OF ROWLAND HALL-ST. MARK'S SCHOOL STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ss. ROWLAND HALL-ST. MARK'S SCHOOL, a Utah nonprofit corporation("RHSM"), being first duly sworn, hereby declare and say that,pursuant to Title 2, Chapter 2.62, of the Salt Lake City Code, RHSM met with and explained the proposal to purchase and develop the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association property to the Yalecrest Community Council on March 2, 2005. This affidavit is executed at Salt Lake City, Utah on 4/ , 2005. ROWLAND HALL-ST. MARK'S SCHOOL, a Utah nonprofit corporation By Julie ett, ct n ea as er SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this -2 371- day of C('— ""` R Ct� 2005 by Julie Barrett, Acting Headmaster of Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School, a Utah nonprofit corporation. ._ Notary Public and Seal h o G I V !4 1) rat/Ye 1 t i s HIT Lcifs0 `i} I)r rw, ;a c Sa]tLake-248713.2 0044379-00001 Exhibit"H" (Traffic Study) SaltLake-248713.2 0044379-00001 'PP FEHR & PEERS - TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM Date: January 21, 2005 To: Rowland Hall-St. Mark's From: Fehr& Peers Associates, Inc. Subject: Middle and Upper Schools Relocation Phase I: Rowland Hall-St. Mark's Local Trip Generation Study UT05-590 Introduction This memorandum provides a trip generation analysis for Rowland Hall - St. Mark's Middle and Upper Schools. This initial analysis is the first phase of a two-phase study that will assess the traffic impacts of relocating these two schools from the corner of Lincoln Street and 800 South to Sunnyside Avenue at approximately 1600 East. Included in this memorandum are the results of a local trip generation study performed in January 2005. This memorandum provides a preliminary estimate of the potential traffic impacts to Sunnyside Avenue created by the relocation of the schools. The local trip generation rates reported here will be used in Phase II to provide a thorough assessment of the traffic impacts created by this relocation. Local Trip Generation Data The main purpose of this phase was to conduct a local trip generation analysis, the objective of which was to estimate the current amount of traffic generated by the middle and upper schools. The trip generation rates observed at the existing school may then be used to accurately project trip generation for the new school. Local trip generation data was collected during the morning traffic peak period, and consisted of two parts: determining the number of vehicles as a result of dropping students off, and the number of vehicles as a result of students and faculty who park their vehicles on site. The number of vehicles and persons dropped off along Lincoln Street and 800 South were counted in fifteen minute increments from 7:30 to 8:30 AM. The number of vehicles parked in the student and faculty parking lots and on the streets adjacent to the schools were also counted before and after the peak morning period. The results of the local trip generation analysis are shown in Table 1. The rate of vehicles traveling to and from the schools, including the school buses, during the peak morning period was 571 vehicles per hour (vph). Each passenger vehicle dropping off students was observed to have an average student occupancy rate of 1.2 students per vehicle. 302 West 5400 South,Suite 100,Murray,UT 84107 (801)261-4700 Fax(801)261-0763 www.fehrandpeers.com Rowland Hall-St. Mark's January 21, 2005 Page 2 of 2 TABLE 1 AM Peak Hour Local Trip Generation Rates Number of AM Peak Hour Trips Trips AM Enrolled Trip Generation Entering Exiting Trips Land Use Students Middle &Upper Schools 486 571 338 233 571 Preliminary Impact Analysis Fehr & Peers performed a preliminary estimate of the increase in traffic expected at Sunnyside Avenue. Because the new schools will be similar in size to the existing schools, the projected trip generation is expected to be the same as the current trip generation of 571 vph during the peak morning period. However, an estimated 25% of trips to the schools currently travel on Sunnyside Avenue, and should be accounted for in estimating new trips to this street. The portion of the school traffic already using Sunnyside Avenue was calculated by using a list of the zip codes of the students and estimating probable travel paths from these zip code areas to the schools. Based on the trip generation rate derived from this study and the above mentioned adjustment, the relocation of the Rowland Hall — St. Mark's middle and upper schools will generate approximately 428 new trips per hour during the morning peak period. Based on an estimated peak hour volume of 1,220 vph for Sunnyside Avenue, the relocation of the schools will result in an approximate increase of 18% in traffic. Phase II will refine these estimates and evaluate the impacts of increasing traffic on Sunnyside Avenue and major intersections surrounding the school. Exhibit "I" (Summary of the History of the Mt. Olivet Property, and Objectives of the Association and RHSM) SaltLake-248713.2 0044379-00001 For: RHSM Mt. Olivet Committee Open House Re: Background for RHSM Acquisition of 13.2 Acres of Land West of the McCarthey Campus Date: February 16, 2005 We understand the history of the Mt. Olivet Cemetery Association property west of the McCarthey Lower/Beginning School Campus as follows: In the 1870's Congress set aside land for the actual Mt. Olivet cemetery. In the early 1900's, the U.S. Government wanted to buy land in"Research Park" which was owned by a son of Brigham Young (I believe his name was Legrand Young). (Apparently, Mr. Young did not want to sell to the U.S. Government.) Therefore, the U.S. Government arranged the purchase of the"Research Park" land by the Association. The Association then traded the"Research Park" land to the U.S. Government for the land under contract to RHSM(for ease of discussion here, the"Mt. Olivet Property") and the East High playing fields just west of the Mt. Olivet Property. The U.S. Government continues to hold a"reversionary interest"2 in the Mt. Olivet Property, such that if it ceases to be used for cemetery purposes it reverts to the U.S. Government3. 2 The Reversionary Interest The United States may obtain the property back if it ceases to be used as a cemetery. Release of Reversionary Interest —a The property is not used for the purpose specified in the reversionary clause —> The owner of the property no longer needs the property —a The property is inconvenient or inappropriate for the owner's use • —> The property is needed by another entity that provides some public benefit —> The U. S. Government doesn't need the property —> No significant costs to federal, State or local governments from a release of the reversionary interest 3 The East High Playing Fields Lease Exception The East High playing fields are leased to Salt Lake City pursuant to a 1992 Act of Congress,which allows for the lease of such property for a period of not more than 70 years for other than cemetery purposes, so long as such additional uses will not prevent future use for cemetery purposes. SaltLake-248713 2 0044379-00001 The Mt. Olivet Property was an alfalfa field in the early years of the Association's ownership. It was used to graze the horses necessary for cemetery work. The Association has enough space in the existing cemetery area to continue its operations for at least ninety years. The Association needs to sell the Mt. Olivet Property to be able to provide perpetual care at the cemetery. If RHSM does not purchase the Mt. Olivet Property, the Association may sell the land to the University of Utah or,presumably, will sell the Mt. Olivet Property to Larkin Mortuary or a similar operation.4 In order for RHSM to buy the Mt. Olivet Property, RHSM needs Congress to remove the "reversionary interest"the U.S. Government holds in the Mt. Olivet Property. As part of RHSM's efforts to secure the removal of the"reversionary interest" and, in that regard, to ensure the support of Utah's congressional representatives and senators, RHSM needs the support of Salt Lake City and, if at all possible, the surrounding community. RHSM believes that its ownership of the Mt. Olivet Property will deliver a net benefit to Salt Lake City and the surrounding community, both in the immediate neighborhood and more broadly. As such, RHSM believes that Salt Lake City and the surrounding community should support RHSM's efforts in this regard. The reasons are several: First, about two-thirds of the land would be turned "green"with soccer fields and open ground. Second, the long run construction of a middle and upper school building at the northern most edge of the Mt. Olivet Property would carry on the open aesthetics of the McCarthey Lower/Beginning School Campus. Third, for the first time, this land would be useable by the public for soccer league games as well as for casual recreation and play in the same manner as our current soccer field, which is used heavily by youth league soccer teams. RHSM believes that making the Mt. Olivet Property available for athletic and recreational uses, in addition to the green space through landscaping improvements, will benefit the community and Salt Lake City. These uses and improvements, RHSM believes, outweigh any advantages perceived by keeping the Mt. Olivet Property in its existing, fenced and unimproved, condition. It may be many years before RHSM could raise the money needed to build a new campus on the Mr. Olivet Property. Although that may be, ultimately, the anticipated use of the Mt. Olivet Property, it may be beyond RHSM's reach for a long time. However, it is possible that RHSM could take the (hopefully) interim step of developing the playing fields in the near term, in a way not to interfere with construction at the north end of the Mt. Olivet Property in the future. 4 The University of Utah does not need to obtain building permits from Salt Lake City as does RHSM,and the University is not subject to zoning controls as is RHSM. SaltLake-248713.2 0044379-00001 The traffic impacts of any development near Sunnyside Avenue or Guardsman Way is something to which RHSM would pay careful attention. RHSM, like Salt Lake City and the community,takes a keen interest in the safety of our children those attending RHSM and those in the surrounding community. As such, RHSM hired Fehr&Peers, as transportation consultants, to prepare a preliminary study assessing the traffic impacts,based on the limited information now available, of someday relocating the middle and upper schools to the Mt. Olivet Property. RHSM is encouraged that, during the peak time at the start of the school day, which is the only time of significant traffic impact,the approximate traffic increase would only be approximately 18%. The rest of the day students are in school and generally are not generating additional traffic on Sunnyside Avenue or Guardsman Way.5 After school, students leave the campus over several hours depending on their participation in sports, clubs or other interests on campus,thus ameliorating traffic impacts. The purchase of the Association's 13.2 acres will strengthen our school with the proximity of the RHSM campuses,with the promise that physical facilities in the Upper and Middle schools will be commensurate with those of the Beginning and Lower Schools, and with the learning opportunities that necessarily will result from the shared environments. We hope that the long term success of RHSM will also be viewed as a benefit to Salt Lake City, along with the public benefit we propose to provide on the Mt. Olivet Property. Our immediate objectives are to work cooperatively with the surrounding community, viewed as RHSM's neighbors, and Salt Lake City officials,to incorporate neighborhood interests into our planning for any new and relocated RHSM campus. Looking further ahead,we need to obtain the release of the reversionary interest by early 2007 in order to complete the purchase of the Mt. Olivet Property within the terms of our contract with the Association. 5 It should be noted that, at present,RHSM does not contemplate access to the Mt.Olivet Property,when improved, from Guardsman Way during the school day. To: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 0 q�21�2(�(- Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School J 1 J V INVOICE NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DISCOUNT NET AMOUN • CK REQ 4/21/2005 7200500 REZONING APP FEE • $I,700.00' .$0.00 $1,700.00 I otals: $1,700.00 $0.00 $1,700.00 • • • • • WARNING:THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING SECURITY FEATURES:DocuCheck Security Paper,Micro Signature Line and Bleed-Through Micr Encoding Wells Fargo Bank Northwest,N.A. Rowland Hall-St, Mark's School 720 GUARDSMAN WAY SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84108 31-297/1240 CHECK DATE CHECK NO. 4/21/2005 51566 • CHECK AMOUNT PAY RHSM $ 1,700doIs00cts $ 170000 TO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION THE • ORDEROF AUTHORIZED 6IGNATURE Ile 05L56611 I: L2400297it:0SL00i368311' WARNING.THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING SECURITY FEATURES:DocuCheck Security Paper,Micro Signature Line and Bleed-Through Micr Encoding Wells Fargo Bank Northwest,N.A. Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School 720 GUARDSMAN WAY SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84108 31-297/1240 CHECK DATE CHECK NO. 4/21/05 51570 CHECK AMOUNT *****$110.50 PAY*****ONE HUNDRED TEN DOLLARS AND 50/100 TO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION THE ORDER OF THORIZED SIGNATURE SA TIP I,, ©�V T� 1 i41�t11�1`jP� ROSS C.ANDERSON MAYOR LYNN H.PACE LAW DEPARTMENT EDWIN P.RUTAN,II CITY ATTORNEY DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Salt Lake City Council FROM: Lynn H. Pace DATE: March 7, 2006 SUBJECT: Summary of 2006 Utah Legislative Session The following is a summary of the most significant bills I was following during the recent legislative session. 1. General Bills. HB 9 (Second Substitute) - Workers' Compensation Studies Including Coverage of Firefighters and Drug Officers (Murray) Provides for a study of the health consequences for firefighters and drug officers with exposure to meth labs. HB 60 - Controlled Substance Amendments (Oda) Modifies legal requirements for those entitled to claim use of peyote as a religious activity. HB 90 - Criminal Penalty Amendments (Litvack) Imposes enhancement penalties for hate crimes. HB 100 (First Substitute) - Environmental Litigation Bond (Tilton) Imposes a requirement that plaintiffs asserting environmental lawsuits must file a bond to cover the cost of potential damages due to delays arising from the litigation. HB 109 (Third Substitute) - Sales and Use Tax-Food and Food Ingredients and Local Taxes (Newbold) Removes 2% off the State portion of the sales tax on food. Local option sales tax on food is unchanged. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 505,SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7788 FAX: 801-535-7640 IC ✓RECYCLED PAPER HB 110 - Airport Security Amendments (Hughes) Authorizes background checks for ground transportation providers at the airport. HB 132 (First Substitute) - Local Land Use Requirements (Morley) Clarifies land use vesting standards and limitations on unwritten requirements for building permits or certificates of occupancy. HB 172 (Second Substitute) - Local Land Use Provisions Relating to Schools (Ferrin) Modifies land use requirements relating to approval and inspection of charter schools. Clarifies responsibility for building inspections and issuing certificates of occupancy. HB 207 - Inherent Risks of Participating in Recreational Activities on Property Owned by Local Government (Bowman) Adds ice skating to the list of inherently dangerous activities for which local governments are immune from liability. HB 221 - Ambulance and Paramedic Fee Amendments (Ray) Prohibits charging ambulance transportation fee when no transportation of the patient occurs. HB 238 - Authorizing Temporary Road Closures (Noel) Authorizes temporary closures of class B, D or RS 2477 roadways. HB 247 (First Substitute) -Plea in Abeyance Fee (Lawrence) Limits plea in abeyance fees to $25 and requires itemization of all Justice Court fees charged. HB 250 - Local Governments Restriction on Limiting Certain Fees (Hughes) Prohibits local governments from prohibiting tenant application or other fees on private residential property. HB 256 - Requirement of Property Tax Increase Advertisement (Hughes) Modifies (and improves) the form for the Truth in Taxation Notice. HB 264 - Acceptance of RS 2477 Rights-of-Way Amendments (Noel) Modifies the right-of-way across Federal Lands Act by amending notice of acknowledgment provisions for acceptance of RS 2477 roadways. HB 309 (Second Substitute) - Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax Amendments (Hughes) This bill caps the amount of increase in the municipal franchise tax for natural gas to no more than 10% growth per year. 2 HB 371 - Transient Room Taxes Amendments (Clark) This bill eliminates the 10 year sunset on the transient room tax authorized last year by the Legislature to fund the expansion of the Salt Palace and the parking garage at the South Towne Expo Center. The bill also expands the list of allowed uses to include sports facilities. HB 372 - Expenditure of Local Option Transportation Tax Revenue (Ferry) This bill authorizes Salt Lake County to utilize approximately$3.5 million of existing transportation revenues to help fund the realignment of the rail lines at Grant Tower. HB 394 (First Substitute) - Relocating Outdoor Advertising (Ure) Modifies the regulations for relocating billboards which conflict with overhead power lines. HB 446 (First Substitute) - Surplus Lands Amendment (Walker) Provides counties and municipalities with a right of first refusal to purchase lands declared surplus by a local school district. SB 17 - Highway Transfer Process Amendment (Walker) Amends the process for the addition or deletion of highways from the State highway system. SB 19 (Second Substitute) - Amendments to Indoor Clean Air Act (Waddoups) Amends the Utah Clean Air Act to prohibit smoking in childcare facilities, private schools, and certain private clubs. SB 35 (First Substitute) - Local Option Sales and Use Tax Distribution Amendment (Bell) Provides a 7-10 year phase out of the 1983 sales tax hold harmless provisions. SB 58 (First Substitute) - Alcoholic Beverage Amendments-Eliminating Alcohol Sales to Youth (Knudson) Redirects a portion of existing beer tax revenues for training and education to help prohibit alcohol sales to underage drinkers. SB 113 (Second Substitute) - Governmental Immunity Limits (Stephenson) Increases the governmental immunity limits for aggregate claims from $1 million to $2 million, effective July 2007. 4 117 - Eminent Domain Amendments (Stephenson) Prohibits use of eminent domain for trails or paths unless adjacent to paved roads. Also requires approval of the legislative body prior to exercise of eminent domain. SB 127 (First Substitute) - Vacating or Changing a Subdivision Plat (Knudson) Modifies the requirements for the approval of subdivisions and subdivision amendments. 3 SB 140 - Unlawful Outdoor Advertising Amendment (Waddoups) Increases the penalties for unlawful billboards. SB 155 (First Substitute) - Amendments to County and Municipal Land Use Provisions (Bell) Amendments to State Land Use Development and Management Act. SB 183 (First Substitute) - Utah Emergency Medical Services Act Amendments (Eastman) Amends ambulance RFP process to clarify that approval must be granted by the legislative body. SB 196 (Second Substitute) - Revisions to Redevelopment Agency Provisions (Bramble) Adopted comprehensive revisions to the State Redevelopment Act, which now includes three tools for economic development: economic development areas, redevelopment areas (urban renewal) and community development areas. SB 209 - Waste Fee Amendments (Eastman) Modifies waste disposal fees. SB 222 - Outdoor Advertising-Height Adjustment of Signs (Hellewell) Authorizes the adjustment of billboards on property which is or was owned by UDOT. SB 229 - Civil Service Commissions (Jenkins) Eliminates the prohibition against the dissolution of a civil service commission. SB 267 (First Substitute) - Changes to Local Government Provisions (Mansell) Modifies requirements for processing of land use applications and impact fee requirements. SB 268 (First Substitute) - Property Rights Ombudsman (Mansell) Provides a vehicle for expedited review of administrative land use decisions by obtaining an advisory opinion with the assistance of the State property rights ombudsman. 2. Amendments to the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA). HB 12 - Amendments to Government Records Access and Management Act (Aagard) A "record" does not include a personal note or personal communication received in a government official's private capacity. If the City requires people to submit private or controlled information, the city must provide notice of why the information is required. 4 HB 28 (First Substitute) - Access and Fee Amendments to Government Records Access and Management Act (Aagard) Protects an individual's home address, home telephone number, or personal phone number in certain circumstances. Gives the City more ability to charge a fee for providing records. Allows the city to share confidential records with a contractor or private provider in limited circumstances. HB 117 - GRAMA Records Committee Appeal (Moss) Lengthens some of the time periods relating to appeals to the State Records Committee. HB 188 (First Substitute) - Government Access and Management Act Revisions (Frank) Certain mobile telephone numbers are not a "record" if the city provides another telephone number in response to a GRAMA request. The chief administrative officer of a city must ensure that officers and employees that process GRAMA requests receive required training regarding GRAMA. HB 258 (First Substitute) - Government Records Access and Management Act-Public Records (Ferry) Makes changes regarding business telephone numbers. SB 190 (First Substitute) - Shared Government Records Amendments (Dmitrich) GRAMA requests must go to the governmental entity that prepares, owns, or retains the record. 3. Amendments to the Open Meetings Law. HB 14 (Second Substitute) - Open Meetings Law Amendments (Harper) A"meeting" includes a workshop or an executive session. A workshop or executive session that is held on the same day as a regularly scheduled public meeting may only be held at the location where the public body is holding the regularly scheduled public meeting. The public body must publicly announce and enter on the minutes the reasons for holding a closed meeting and the vote of each member on the motion to hold the closed meeting. A public body must record the closed portion of a meeting. The presiding officer of a public body must ensure that the members of the public body are provided with annual training on the requirements of the Open and Public Meetings Act. HB 16 (Third Substitute) - Revisions to Open and Public Meetings Law (Donnelson) Requires (1) electronic notice of meetings, (2) notice to media agencies that make a periodic request for notice, and (3) notice on the Internet. Makes changes regarding meeting agendas and when a public body can discuss a topic not listed on the agenda. SB 9 - Open and Public Meetings Act Revisions (Hellewell) Affects many sections of the Utah Open Meetings Act. 5 SB 12 - Electronic Meeting Amendment (Hillyard) A public body may not hold an electronic meeting unless it has adopted a resolution, rule, or ordinance governing the use of electronics meetings. 4. Water Bills. HB38 - Water Reuse Requirements (Ferry) Adopted regulations for ownership and use of secondary water. HB 45 - Bear River Development Act (Adams) Approved funding for the development of Bear River water. HB 47 (First Substitute) - Sales Tax Diversion for Water Projects and Water Financing (Ure) Authorizes use of sales and use tax to help finance Lake Powell pipeline and Bear River pipeline. HB 48 - Water Company Amendments (Ure) Authorizes a shareholder action against an irrigation company for actual damages. HB 228 - Ground Water Management Plan (Ure) Authorizes the State Engineer to create a ground water management plan. HB 357 - Water Issues Task Force (Ure) Provides funding for the continued operation of the Water Task Force for one more year. SB 27 - Lake Powell Pipeline Development Act (Hatch) Provides funding for the Lake Powell Pipeline. SB 111 - Water Conservancy District Amendments (Hatch) Modifies provisions related to tax levies imposed by water conservancy districts. SB 177 - Water Right Application Amendment (Hatch) Expands the definition of public agency for purposes of the completion of a water right application. 5. Significant Bills That Did Not Pass. HB 9 - Workers Compensation Coverage of Firefighters and Drug Task Force Officers (Murray) Original bill would have changed the presumption for firefighters and drug task force members for certain types of cancers. 6 HB 206 - Local Governments Form of Government (Wallace) Would have required cities of the first or second class to operate a council-manager form of government. HB 240 - Public Safety Retirement Revisions (Clark) Would have imposed approximately 3-4% increase in city retirement costs for public safety officials. HB 327 - Public Employer Benefit Plans (Christensen) Would have prohibited the use of any public funds to provide health insurance benefits for domestic partners. SB 24 - Weapons Amendments (Madsen) Would have authorized carrying of a concealed firearm in a motor vehicle. SB 113 - Governmental Immunity Limits (Stephenson) Original bill would have increased governmental immunity limits to $1 million per person and $10 million for aggregate claims. SB 166 - Moratorium on Issuing Sales Tax Revenue Bonds by Local Governments (Hillyard) Would have prohibited the issuance of new sales tax revenue bonds. SB 170 - Local Government Land Use and Impact Fee Revisions (Mansell) Would have completely destroyed the manner in which local municipalities make land use decisions. LHP:ss N drives v\PL9984\Memos 2005\Memo to Council re Issues for State Legislative Session-Mar 7,2006.doc 7 GRANT TOWER FUNDING OPTIONS City project costs: $11.0 million - $1.2 million in RDA funds already allocated $9.8 million Budget Op. Req. -$4.0 million (options)1. fund balance 2. Use current CIP funds and bond for CIP projects so tax- exempt eligible (debt service* $496,000 year for 10 years) $5.8million (bond amount if$4 million is taken from fund balance- debt service $720,000 year for 10 years) -$3.1 million costs eligible for Depot District RDA funds (if RDA pays debt service instead of cash, $385,000 a year for 10 years) $2.7 million bond amount if$4 million from fund balance and RDA pays eligible costs (debt service $326,000 a year for 10 years) *all debt service figures are approximate Bonding option debt service costs — 10 year bonds: OPTION 1 OPTION 2 $4M cash from CIP, DS on $9.8M $4M cash from fund balance, DS on$5.8M CIP bond debt service $496,000 Debt service on $5.8M $720,000 Debt service on remainder $720.000 RDA pays portion -$385,000 Total DS on$9.8M $1,216,000 Total City DS $335,000 RDA pays portion of DS - $385,000 Total City Debt Service $831,000 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: March 7,2006 SUBJECT: Funding Options regarding Grant Tower Railroad Re-alignment project STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Policy Analyst AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 1,2,3,and 4 ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: Office of the Mayor AND CONTACT PERSON: DJ Baxter BUDGET RELATED FACTS: A. The Administration has presented 10 funding scenarios for the Council's consideration, examined in detail in the attached transmittal. There is no formal recommendation about which to pursue. While impact on the budget will depend on which option the Council decides to pursue,the Administration is proposing to draw from fund balance now in order to begin property acquisition and design immediately. This funding request is part of Budget Amendment#4 for a total amount of$4 million. 1. There is an estimated$6,525,955 requested from fund balance in Budget Amendment#4. If every request in the Budget Amendment were to be granted,that would leave approximately$19.1 million in fund balance or 11.12%. This level does not address any requests associated with TRAX. 2. If the Council wishes to discuss specific property acquisition further,an executive session has been tentatively scheduled. B. While the funding options presented in the Administration's transmittal are summarized further in the Key Elements section(see item I) the following summarizes the pros and cons of each general idea: 1. Paying for Grant Tower out of the general fund or fund balance: i. Pros- • Avoids obligating future budget years to debt service payments, • Would complete the project in a timely manner,ensuring completion in coordination with commuter rail ii. Cons- • Could draw down fund balance to a point below 10% (if all requests in Budget Amendment#4 are granted,there would be approximately$1.9 million"left" above the 10% level), • Could mean sacrifice of a significant amount of other"regular" general fund expenditures, • Could still be left with the dilemma of how to fund other projects mentioned below (TRAX extension,Fleet Facility if the Council decides to pursue, 500 West 200 South intersection if the Council decides to pursue, "Enhanced" parks along 900 South and Folsom corridors) 2. Bonding for only Grant Tower (or combining bonding with some general fund offset): i. Pros- 1 • Would take care of funding the project in a timely manner,ensuring completion in coordination with commuter rail • Could minimize the amount of additional debt service burden on CIP to free money for other projects ii. Cons- • Would obligate the CIP with additional debt service payments resulting in less money available for other community projects (see table below), • Would not pay for any project other than Grant Tower, and would leave even less general fund money after debt service to complete these other projects, • Bonding in and of itself could be complicated due to tax-exempt eligible and ineligible components of the project(explained in detail below-item I-2a), • Would not be cost effective if the Council were to eventually decide to bond for the fleet facility($32,000 savings in bond issuance cost,$417,000 savings in overall bond issued,$30,000 yearly savings in debt service payments-see table below) 3. Bonding for Grant Tower and the Fleet Facility together i. Pros- • Would take care of funding the project in a timely manner,ensuring completion in coordination with commuter rail, • Would fund the Fleet Facility in a timely manner,freeing up current fleet site for redevelopment, • Would save in cost of issuance,total bond amount, and debt service payments,as shown in the following table (estimates provided by the City's financial advisor): Cost of Debt Service Project Total Bond Issuance (avg) Grant Tower Tax Exempt Portion Only(includes only "basic" parks) $ 6,665,000 $ 63,331 $ 490,000 Fleet Facility Only $ 24,300,000 $ 103,020 $ 1,840,000 Both Fleet Facility and Grant Bonded Seperately $ 30,965,000 $ 166,351 $ 2,330,000 Both Fleet Facility and Grant Tower Bonded Together $ 30,548,000 $ 134,302 $ 2,300,000 Difference between bonding separatly and bonding together $ 417,000 $ 32,049 $ 30,000 Bonding for all of the Grant Tower project(still includes only "basic" parks, but would re-imburse the general fund for any up-front expenses) $ 11,100,000 $ 84,505 $ 817,000 ii. Cons- 2 • Would obligate the CIP with even greater additional debt service payments resulting in less money available for other community projects, • Bonding in and of itself would still be complicated due to tax-exempt eligible and ineligible components of the project(explained in detail below) 4. Pursuing a Federal Railroad Loan to pay for all or part of the project i. Pros- • Could assist in funding the project,possibly up to 100%, • Would ensure project completion ii. Cons- • Application process could take longer than expected-a City government has never pursued this kind of loan, • The issue of collateral and loan guarantee could be complicated-usually the FRA takes a lien on the actual tracks that are being built. The City would have to find some comparable way to guarantee the loan with property that the FRA would desire. • Interest rate is higher than if the City were to bond (4.75% as compared to 3.3%) 5. Pursuing Class C Road funds to pay for all or part of the project i. Pros- • Could assist in funding the project to help ensure completion • The City already receives this money-no need to bond or pursue outside agencies ii. Cons- • The money would not be sufficient to pay for 100% of the project • This money is already being slated for other City road projects according to the 10 Year CIP-including the TRAX extension in FY 2009. These projects would have to be deferred to a future date which could lead to further road deterioration KEY ELEMENTS: A. The Administration's transmittal includes a breakdown of the various funding components and funding options for the Grant Tower Railroad re-alignment project. Members of the Administration as well as bond counsel will be at the Council Briefing to answer any questions Council Members may have. B. The transmittal does not include a funding recommendation from the Administration,but the budget opening does include a request for fund balance. Some of the funding sources and approaches raised in this memorandum for funding Grant Tower have also been raised in the initial conversations on funding for the TRAX stations. C. The Grant Tower rail line curves that are at issue in this project are located between the intersection of North Temple and 500 West and Folsom Avenue and 700 West. 1. This grouping of rail lines is where interstate freight trains make the directional change from southbound to westbound,or from eastbound to northbound. 2. Because the current curves are so tight,trains have to slow down significantly in order to navigate,causing delays of up to 40 minutes. 3. Reconfiguring these curves so that trains can move through the area more quickly involves the following,while maintaining railroad service through the area: a. removal of tracks.from Folsom Avenue; 3 b. construction of new tracks on South Temple; c. relocation of underground utilities; d. installation of new traffic and railroad signals; e. land acquisition D. The overall project cost is estimated at$50 million. The City's estimated share of the overall project cost is approximately$11 million. The Council will determine what, if any,portion of that cost should come from the General Fund and what option is ideal to fund the remainder. The following is a breakdown of the estimated$50 million project: • $5 million-Federal appropriation to Salt Lake City and Union Pacific through the SAFETEA-LU transportation spending bill • $15 million- UTA contribution for work that must also be completed to accommodate commuter rail • $15 million- Union Pacific's agreed contribution • $11 million City share • $3.5 million- Legislature authorized use of the transportation sales tax collected by Salt Lake County (one-time allowance) E. Salt Lake City's contribution would go up even more if the costs of planting the Folsom Avenue and 9th South park areas are included. The Parks Division estimates these costs to be$300,000 (for basic erosion control seeding-more advanced park development would be more costly), bringing the City's total closer to$11.3 million. If the Council is interested in the bonding approach,bond counsel recommends this park project be included in order to have a City asset at the project's conclusion and make the total Grant Tower project"bondable." Property acquisition will ideally begin immediately, and is projected to cost between$3.5 and$4 million. This figure is included in the$11 million"City contribution" number. F. Previous attempts have been made to reach an agreement on how to fund this project,but only recently,with the construction of UTA Commuter rail, the support of UDOT and the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC),and an agreement reached by Union Pacific and Salt Lake City, has an agreement been within reach. 1. The involvement of commuter rail,while providing the benefit of doing both projects simultaneously, does place certain time constraints on the rest of the project with respect to construction timelines and completion. 2. Commuter rail construction is expected to begin in the summer of 2006 and conclude in late 2007 or early 2008. 3. Therefore,the window of opportunity for Grant Tower construction and completion is the 2007 construction season. The cost and complexity of the project would increase dramatically if construction were to occur after commuter rail is operational in early 2008. G. The City will have to acquire land from private property owners in order to accommodate the realignment. 1. There are approximately 40 parcels to be purchased,but fewer than 10 are"entire parcels" (for some parcels only 10 to 15 feet of the parcel is needed for the realignment). 2. The land necessary for the re-alignment will be deeded to Union Pacific for the rail construction. Any excess land not needed for re-alignment could be resold at a later date. This strategy could complicate matters regarding issuance of bonds,as the City must retain ownership of all land purchased with bond proceeds. One option could be to fund everything but land acquisition with bond proceeds. 3. As a part of the exchange, once the Grant Tower realignment is completed, Union Pacific will abandon the 900 South rail line and deed that property to the City,along with property in the Folsom Avenue corridor. 4 a. The Folsom Avenue corridor land is approximately 100 feet in width and stretches from 700 to 1200 West. b. The US Army Corps of Engineers and the City have both identified this corridor as an ideal location to bring some of the flow of City Creek back to the surface,and in the process add a natural amenity to the Euclid neighborhood (the Euclid Area Master Plan,currently under development,not yet adopted, contemplates this scenario). c. The 900 South Rail line land is approximately 50 to 60 feet in width and runs from 700 West to Redwood Road. H. The following table shows a breakdown by month of the City's expenditures: Salt Lake City Expenditure Timeline (Approximate) -Separated by Fiscal Years Fiscal Year 2006 Description February 2006 $ 50,000 Property Appraiser $ 50,000 Consultant-Utility Relocation Design $ 50,000 Boundary Survey and Description March 2006 $ 200,000 Environmental Assessment(all properties) April 2006 $ 70,000 Finalize utility design $ 200,000 Retain project management and street design $ 2,830,805 Right-of-way Acquisition $ 650,000 700 South property acquisition for quite zone $ 250,000 Relocation and Demolition June 2006 $ 900,000 Utility Relocation $ 126,000 City creek conduit February -June 2006 Total $ 5,376,805 Fiscal Year 2007 August 2006 $ 165,000 Continue consultant for street design Consultant program management and Project $ 418,000 Construction Engineer and Overview December 2006 $ 1,930,000 Roadway improvements $ 880,000 Gate and signals for quiet zone July -December 2006 Total $ 3,393,000 Sub-total February- December 2006 $ 8,769,805 Applied to everything but property acquisition and appraiser, which already has contingency built in, and environmental assessment which has no 20% contingency $ 1,147,800 contingency applied 10%for inflation $ 991,760 Grand Total $ 10,909,365 I. The following are funding options for covering this City contribution. Please see the Administration's transmittal for comprehensive information on each option: 1. General Fund Revenue/Fund Balance/RDA (no bonding) -The RDA Board could elect to use Depot District funds for a portion of the costs,reducing the remainder to a level that could be borne by the General Fund. The Administration's paperwork indicates that if the board were to pay for all eligible project elements (quiet zone design, 5 engineering and construction,City Creek conduit,quiet zone work at 300 and 400 North, other discrete items in the Depot District),the total RDA expenditure could be up to$3.3 million,leaving$7.6 million to come from the General Fund. The Administration's application to the RDA board for FY 2006-2007 is for$4.4 million. This could obviously have a significant impact on the Redevelopment Agency. a. The Administration's paperwork indicates that the RDA has already allocated $1.4 million for the quiet zone and City Creek culvert issue. RDA records indicate that$1.8 million has already been allocated. b. The increment projected to be available in the Depot District in FY 2006-2007 is approximately$1 million,with approximately$1.6 million available in FY 2007-2008 (These figures do not include any RDA contributions towards TRAX or Grant Tower projects). The spreadsheets at the end of this staff report were provided to Council Staff by the RDA (see attached). The impact of funding both Grant Tower and the TRAX extension proposal is shown,as well as the previous 7 years of funding for quiet zones,transmission line burial (related to the 500 West 200 South intersection),and the TRAX extension. c. RDA staff has previously communicated to Council Staff that City-Wide housing funds could also be available,as ensuring the quiet zones would be in order to protect housing city-wide (particularly at the 800,900 and 1000 West crossings). The City-Wide Housing Fund is projected to have roughly$721,000 available. d. While these available funds ensure that previous commitments are paid for, if 100% of the available funds are used to pay for Grant Tower, there will be no remaining funds for other RDA projects in these areas. OPTION 1A- RDA cover quiet zone work and street improvements already allocated in Depot District,plus the cost of the City Creek conduit, for a total of$1.8 million,leaving$9.1 million to be covered by the General Fund. OPTION 1B-RDA covers items in la,in addition to Quiet Zone work at 300/400 North, and other Depot District items,for a total of$3.3 million, leaving$7.6 million to be covered by the general fund. 2. Sales Tax Revenue Bonds-Current tax policy will not allow the City to use tax exempt bonds to pay for land that will be turned over to Union Pacific,even if the City receives an equal-value land exchange. It is estimated that$4.6 million of the total project cost is related to items ineligible for tax-exempt bonding (page 7 of the Administration's memo breaks down the components of the project by"eligibility"),leaving$6.4 million that is "bondable". a. The City's bond counsel has suggested using taxable bonds for the ineligible portion of the project,until the project is complete and the 900 South and Folsom land has been turned over to the City. Once this happens the taxable bonds can then be converted back to tax-exempt bonds. This would save money in interest payments over the life of the bond. 6 b. It should be noted that the figures above do not include the Folsom or 900 South Corridor parks,which bond counsel is recommending the project include if the City were to pursue Sales Tax revenue bonds. 1. The base cost for doing the"bare minimum" of native erosion control seeding is estimated to cost$300,000. 2. Plans exist to do much more in both corridors as funds permit. Council Staff note: In the 10 Year CIP,there is a placeholder for$1 million in Fiscal Year 2010 for"Daylighting City Creek." The total cost for this project is listed in the 10 Year CIP at$5 million. The$4 million gap is listed as "other funding" and is not contemplated to come from the general fund, nor is it specified where it would come from. c. Payment for these bonds are historically allocated within the City's Capital Improvement Program budget. d. It should also be noted that if RDA funds are also used in combination with this bonding option,they can be used to offset the amount to be bonded for,or pay for debt service of the bonds. e. It should be noted that out of Fiscal Year 2006's$19.5 million Capital Improvement Program budget,$13.9 million was slated for debt,leaving$5.7 million for other projects. The following is a schedule of when outstanding bonds will expire and how much debt will be"freed": Bond Expiration Date Bond Amount Annual Debt Service Street improvement projects (Motor Fuel February 1,2009 $2,580,000 $733,000 Excise Tax) City&County Building June 15,2011 $14,975,000 $2,956,000 Baseball Stadium,Fire Stations, October 1,2015 $14,767,000 $2,290,000 Cemetery,Wasatch Hollow Park,Forest Dale,400 West Library June 15,2019 $65,965,000 $6,912,000 Zoo/Aviary June 15,2024 $10,930,000 $881,000 f. It should be noted that a$7 million bond for Grant Tower is contemplated in the adopted 10 Year Capital Improvement Program,as well as a$22.1 million Fleet Facility Bond. The debt service payments for the Grant Tower bond are listed to be around$560,000 per year,and the debt service payments for the Fleet Facility Bond are estimated to be around$1.2 million per year. OPTION 2A- The City could use fund balance to pay for the project costs through May($4.6 million) and bond for the remainder of the cost($6.4 million),or for that portion eligible for tax-exempt bonding. Council Staff note: The Council may wish to clarify that the$300,000 for the"basic park" at 900 South and Folsom would be require to go forward with this option. This amount is not included in the above estimates. OPTION 2B-The City could use fund balance up as front in Option 2a,but P bond for the full amount($10.9 million) and reimburse the General Fund 7 with bond proceeds,assuming the City Council was willing to support a taxable bond for part of the$10.9 million in the short term(see explanation item #2a). A taxable bond would be a higher interest rate,but could be shifted to a lower interest rate tax-exempt bond once the project is finished and the City has ownership of the Folsom and 900 South Rail line land. Council Staff note:The Council may wish to clarify that the$300,000 for the "basic park" at 900 South and Folsom would be require to go forward with this option. This amount is not included in the above estimates. OPTION 2c-Using option 2a or 2b,the City could choose to do a combined bond issue to include the Fleet Facility ($24 million). The City's financial advisor estimates that the City could save$750,000 in principal and interest payments and bonding costs over the life of the bond by combining these projects into one bond issue. Council Staff note: The Council may wish to clarify if the$24 million figure for the Fleet Facility includes the$3.1 million to be "reimbursed" to the surplus land account for land acquisition. OPTION 2D-Because portions of the Grant Tower project are not eligible for Tax-exempt financing,the City could bond for eligible CIP projects that (parks,roads,etc.),and use the"freed up" general fund money to pay for the ineligible parts of Grant Tower. The Administration compiled a list of already approved CIP projects (approved in previous fiscal years)with remaining"cash on hand" (see Attachment 2 in the Administration's transmittal). These are eligible projects that have not used 100% of the cash that has already been allocated to them from the Capital Improvement Fund. The total amount that could be"freed up" is$5.9 million(sufficient to pay for the estimated$4.6 million in ineligible Grant Tower costs). If the City were to pursue this route,the debt service on both bonds (for the CIP projects and for the eligible part of Grant Tower projects)would be rolled in to the yearly CIP,thereby reducing the amount of money available for yearly, pay-as-you-go projects. OPTION 2E-Grant tower will be paid for by"freed up" money from bonding for other projects. The Administration is proposing that if the Council bonded for the TRAX Connection and the 500 W 200S park blocks that money would be"freed" to fund Grant Tower. It is not clear how much funding is'available' or'appropriated' that could be'freed' to fund Grant Tower. The Administration indicates that the Council could review bonding options for the TRAX Connection and/or the 500 West/200 South Park Block intersection widening. The Administration estimates savings of $1 million if work on the 500 West Park Blocks is done in conjunction with the TRAX extension project. The bond for both projects would be$10.1 million($8.5 for TRAX-$2.4 from RDA for TRAX+ $4 million for the park blocks),and the$5.2 million loan"repayment" for the Hub would then be "freed" to be used for the Grant Tower project. This assumes that the 8 general fund loan to the Hub is forgiven,and that the in-coming federal appropriations are used for the Grant Tower project instead of repayment to the general fund. While the Administration's transmittal indicated a$1 million savings for doing the intersection project now,the'savings'is would only be realized if the Council decided to fund this project now versus later. Funding for this project has not been allocated and it is not included in the 10-year CIP plan,nor have the project's costs been fully explained to the Council. Details relating to the interplay between TRAX funding and this project funding are not readily available. 3. Federal Railroad Loan-The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)has a Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing(RRIF) program,which provides direct loans to improve railroad facilities including tracks. The terms, generally,would involve current treasury interest rates(4.7%),10-30 year term,and a.5% application fee depending on the complexity of the deal. There are NEPA requirements,but it is possible that the City could use the environmental report conducted by UTA. Typically collateral is the trackage or underlying right of way,but the City could take a lien on its property (this could raise issues depending on the source of loan repayment). This kind of loan is typically only issued to railroad carriers. Salt Lake City is still eligible,but would be the first governmental entity to go through this process. OPTION 3- Pursue a Federal Railroad Loan. This process would take much longer than a typical bond issue(30 days for the FRA to respond and confirm application fee,90 days after application is received to accept or reject the application). The City would not be able to use an FRA loan to pay for 100% of the project,but only for the track,quiet zone improvements,and infrastructure related to the reconfiguration. An additional source of funding would likely need to be identified for property acquisition. 4. Class C Road Funds-An additional source of funds for at least part of the City's commitment to Grant Tower could be Class C Road Funds. The City Receives about$6 million per year in Class C Road Funds. By state law they must be expended on the maintenance and construction of City streets. Approximately$2 million of the City's contribution could be considered"Class C" eligible (actual road work and track crossings of City streets). a. According to the Administration,of the$6 million the City receives,$3 million goes to the Streets Division operating budget to patch,snow plow,and resurface streets. The remaining$3 million goes to CIP,where half of that($1.5 million)typically goes to an annual contract to overlay City streets. The remaining$1.5 goes to arterial and collector street reconstruction projects or towards local match for federally funded street projects. There are projects ,,, scheduled in the 10 Year CIP for FY 2007 and FY 2008,which use this remainder,that would have to be delayed,which would in turn delay other projects (examples: 900 South reconstruction,between State Street and 700 East, 9 1300 East reconstruction,between South Temple and 500 South,1300 South Viaduct,500 East reconstruction,between 900 and 1300 South). b. A total of$4.5 million in Class C funds are committed (to the projects listed above),but are not yet encumbered. c. Administrative staff working on the TRAX extension project have communicated that they are expecting to use approximately$1.8 million in Class C funds in Fiscal Year 2009,for Street improvements on 200 South in relation to the extension(this project is included in the CIP 10 Year Plan). OPTION 4- Pursue Class C funds as a means to offset the total amount. Fund total amount with one of the other options. 5. Additional Bonding consideration- Expanded Grant Tower Project(including full park development)- a. Though there is a$300,000 minimum requirement for pursuing a bonding option,the Administration has submitted a variety of options for phased development of parks at 900 South and the Folsom Corridor (see Attachment 1 in the Administration's transmittal). The following summarizes the additional costs if the Council were to pursue this option: 1. 900 South from 700 West to Redwood Road (10 blocks) a. Phase 1 -$1.9 million(includes 2 street crossings,trail development,benches and drinking fountains,native erosion control seeding,and design and administrative costs) b. Phase 2-$6.7 million(includes security lighting,landscaping and irrigation,Peace Garden Expansion, 900 South Jordan River Park Expansion,and design and administrative costs) c. Total cost Phase 1 &Phase 2-$8.6 million 2. Folsom Trailway from I-15 to Jordon River (5 blocks) a. Phase 1 -$3 million(includes 3 street crossings, trail development, stream opening and development,native erosion control seeding, benches and drinking fountains, and design and administrative costs) b. Phase 2-$2.8 million(includes security lighting, landscaping and irrigation, and design and administrative costs) c. Total cost Phase 1 &Phase 2-$5.9 million 3. Total costs for both parks a. Phase 1 (both parks) -$4.9 million b. Phase 2 (both parks)-$9.5 million c. Total Phase 1 &Phase 2 (both parks) -$14.4 million OPTION 5- Decide which,if any, park development scenarios to pursue, and fund with Options 2a-2e (note: at a minimum, approximately $300,000 must be spent on native erosion control seeding in order to qualify for bonding). 10 POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE A. The Council may wish to ask the Administration what contingencies have been put in place to ensure that our estimate of$11 million is correct. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration how they would fund any cost overruns from this$11 million figure. B. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how this project,and the associated costs,will affect City's fund balance level,in light of the recent Administration budget amendment and the TRAX extension project. Is the level of fund balance high enough to cover all of these costs? C. The Council may wish to consider the general policy of bonding for all major capital projects, and at what level of debt is the City Council comfortable with. D. The Council may wish to have a discussion as the RDA board to discuss the implications of any of the options listed above which may affect RDA funds,and how best to manage any impacts to minimize loss of other RDA project opportunities. E. The Council may wish to confirm with bond counsel that the bonding plan detailed in item#2a above(converting taxable bonds to tax-exempt bonds once the City owns the 900 South and Folsom land)is possible,and what the costs are,if any,for converting these bonds. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Council's street closure policy includes the following: B. The Gateway Specific Plan(adopted 1998)states the following as policy objectives: 1. Encourage high density residential uses 2. Ensure that adequate infrastructure and community facilities are developed to support the proposed mixture of existing,continuing and new uses. 3. Locate housing where there are opportunities to establish a"critical mass" of residential use and a strong sense of neighborhood. 4. Bring City Creek and other water features to the surface in the Gateway District. 5. Develop a City Creek open space corridor that is an integral and identifiable element in the Gateway District. C. The West Salt Lake Master Plan(adopted1995) expresses that Union Pacific Railroad should be encouraged to vacate the 900 South right-of-way,and that the City should acquire the land once abandoned. The right-of-way should then be developed as a pedestrian-bicycle trail and incorporated into the Transvalley Corridor proposed in the Open Space Master Plan. cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara,DJ Baxter, Mary Guy-Sell, Steve Fawcett,Gordon Hoskins,Dan Mule, Rick Graham, Tim Harpst,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright,Doug Dansie,Kurt Larson, Barry Esham,Marge Harvey,Janice Jardine,Russell Weeks,Dave Oka,Valda Tarbet 11 , 2 o o0 a 00 0 02 0 0 00 0 z _o k 10 m — # Ck 2 0 0 0 00 00 0 . c 0 o 00 05 o o = 0 0 00 00 0 22 a i J� a� R4 — a 2 . (4 0 00 40 0 00 0 E0 0 00 00 0 00 0 : U o 00 0tO 0 0i 16 _ ® �R N � o ow 1.0 -I -- I- w &w R n m cp ƒ C \ < C a « o p 2 � m . tol Z k $ / � iu 2 \ 01 al mac \ \ I- 0 7 ' u)c C : 8 2 0 0 2 • a) o m ƒ L § - a © R ? n02 � 2 ' / 2 ) 0 00 � 23 # I- U I- / � CI / / 2X CO & ® / 20 ~ - 02 q co o \ 2 iri N k k Ec w w re c 0 N- / ' 2 ns' § R w ® N N 0) ■ ow J o _22No 0 co 0 « $ — 6 ra 0. 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2o� S 0 00 0 00 0 u � N N � / N- N01 k (0 0 OS G g � ## k , o ok \ o co j <11 © ° � f E a) ( \ a I 0 .bo0 •a) 0 tf > - .. _ ' J � oo 2 re f 3 g 2 0 § 7 & , f c 0) ' § 2 J = Jk7 k -- \ �22 kko o 00 •7 ' # O 0c00 c - Q § � � E20.{ 2 ƒ # kko § 0t % $ x3 § m05 / 2228k Ogg ,_ � 3 @@ �-0 d § � 5 � f � � � � ac § � 2o al - 3 2 & O O 4.OO E2aZ ® OJ �£ o2 § Oo0 0 co (0 N cc) CO Q) O O Cr) C N N t- O O ct) CS) (-41 •G 0N h- Cc) O N 0 () . R RI O C) - cam`) V~' N Cr) O E A CO c- d 0 tC) in to O m ,- ci - to 'yr CO CO O O O O d' U) CS) d) CO 0 (t) O O rr+ N 1-- co c') 1- O N O O C vs lt) v ifi O co' O O 1-' C7M () V U) (NIO0 CO (NJO r O to CO (L) r N .- 4, to O Q3 in 00 15 b O. m u ~ w 10 O 00 O O M O O O 7• 0 (fl 0 CD } V r7 M Vt r CDC 0 M O 'Op 0 C7 CV-u) �t O m CO (h 0 Y 'en c• .4 0 O O 0 O CD 0 m (Q N u. -t 1, O La. • Y CO IL « .C- cD r- O cm ti 0 O O CO Co O m• LL V � CC) (D Of M ((0 CO• } 11. Z Fes' J Z Z LLI 0 c O ill (6 F- 0 > — 0 O co M tif Et C � Z Q a. rnin Z 0 O al -0 � 0 � co'g. 2 a Q = zz r ... z U- o (n = 13 I w w Q •� c to 6 H V p Q U 0 w 0 a) w O 0 <—�, n >- a p a c J a. (o > 'o H 0 < 0 0 0 Q = 0 0 0 F- 0 0 4 ob al COS;1- 0 SS�o $ S ,og R. g NN mM - o h P P G I n {ryy PY imp pipe S N —ui b�hpp e0 �N{� pm� Y�O $ PP R &s N On ag O mm C)C> N SN v n m a v N n m N 1-0 aO co N 2aas a .8i aM m .-a €' o� F� � § M Cm y4 LI M M h O ^ m N h v o aim O r V .0:aa g .. MM n .. N a OM CSa3 n v n .0 a II yy��;Q }}��M� ma o gN S aiS�i dd Efy O r N P 5 ae nmp NM N o o yoy m pp c N{{OOI Mm M.M- O egg V pP tS fND P Wv.N M VN 0 eN N X O��+f Y r M M n MO r: N a MN - S5 g Eli a } .— W NN VDhN m �np IL M M f0 'vt - O A A A 2— N a n. 4. O p p h If h �fryp rig. PN n M M m moMM p r to Ep p ^^ny N PP a SZ N hr- 8 Am b 2 Iep } gg do h W N h wufg4Y. MM m '. *MM . hog".+. a N 0 Oaa p Ar MpmaN1 p N 0 r M N D p wee v�E NgINI I Y M M 41n nMM N 6 P" co N Om mm O AIX §X g m i N[V �i r. n f . m N , P P e� N t7 Mgf YN amp O N pQ S n M Y MNN .- N ♦NN v t0I N C) O£p7 t21 mmO m MN- ER NFm E ER b Mf(,p= a0n h tN�Odn qia aesio-qqp �{ m n 7 m N N N O P N ry n N N. N N 0 q 8 p t'/ N M • Y1� P0.m.n am p^�D O N10�1� N amD 9 o O Y R. W NN U�j INN anapp NN nit-4 m dNN N NOS p C�gG N (y S 8 O 8- HppR�ypO ONN N R g* N O O. ro N mRai NN WO�f, M 11 pOp OO o 0p 8 g p g g 00 8 000 O Y o�p,00 tn0 tN7 30 88 as m r h m8 Q g2m p PN MNNN N M vN u, o$ S8$;Q 8� 25800v8 $� c M2 2i dd .- `mpm o R. N pa P 8 p p 8 §p yy n m�Qj.. 3`4 (" O Y tr+l 1aY O 0 0 ui fNp�Np P " N NM N ^ MN A O Oi 2 P 1L N V fi «C 0 C g E W • E j o ? QV di gH 4Lr ? di u. u. Gtt nQ2E 2 FA : 0 00 2 � mx >zb gi : hd _ o ' € =orff-aVlii$e qW t Ua LLK_M7N oZ4_, a mm 'icLf m AOp� 2O 0 m� O 000. 0 m1D N M QN1 ei N l00 N O N O Fi�I M O ' O Y 0 'h a Y ep0 N N N� -N CO Nr O O se n- <,. N. CO ftpp f0 O N 4v..N N O 1`. g d O O CO N m CO.M m m co t N O) N ' P O A H 0 Y0 N. p 6. {ap N .-O 4. a 0 N. CO 0 W N 0 O.0 �YMO O�fOAppi. } °m pp 0 Or t0N O a �O 0t� IL a M• (p 0 pO� N -h p N- a. f;a O ...cp N 0• L WW O. N N M 0 1 h Y N co el A pp�� p p� N tip W yNa rm < <o- O to e.o_ O N 0.. - n h ON NN 'O t m p O. 0 M A N mM0 OA t Oi N O a, p N� M CO N sr n N Y V Zr-; O tO yj O ffpp��pp rcv 0 cco O` NN coNR 4a Mm MM A tt''ff N �.-Y is ^Aep O 0 a M O Q Q aN 0O,0 Y M'- 0 Ki aNY N 10 n co 4 ,.iM N —O e p M W oc 0 0 aN O clM cO NN of ri co N �Q b Aco N.2$ $ N3- 8 h� o oN N .�00.�0 N 0.eel m y T 0,N N C')CJ M V r t Y N A M. M M N CV Y V.M N d r O F§ O fA'1 fO 0 co. r P cri co CO N M M M l7 0 N 3-Q ^IL v� ' 0 a a r L. r r N. O a, 8 CO N. 00N O 30 ON CO N QSLO NO NO 0 , y y 0 L ry.Ol N N 7 M - -N M c' . N .. 0 00Y <,� 0O ppO 0c0 O tD_a0 N _DppN 0 Y 1 n N , l N N CO O 0.M N (O N , < r C co O CO CO 0 0 A A 0~ 0 O N Co O V. O 00 p2 O Mr Yh co NN O NN 3 O2 00 D1 coN 0 O el W O O rN Opg 82 c60 N° aMo O O N h N O O1.11 -7. N 0O- Ot rn� V r m N. N m N NN c. Gpel CO Y O .rN fOCA+I_ m es 0 ,-tD SO1 rr a �of co O ems- W ^N m c0 CV N '0 CO ... co A ,0 MM// N 0 N N �0 8 11�� cod O pm 1cj Ooo N 0{p 0 O�'l o. mN In N OV.No cc r. <a MN Om CO ONN 3- 0 co N NN O. p op p 8 a .- en 0 0 .1 La. S. O m O Cpp[O....p.pvp 0N, ,,, po 0 0 0 O 10 h 0c0 W u1 OI 7O 8Y Q 0 �� O ae ON N tD 0 h m N N �Qy Lc, 88 S, p 8 8 8 8 Map Oda �� `. 00 OO pD YO f§p0 Y• 3 O 70 NM(p NCO tO O b 8 W p§2 C1N 2 8 M mY M fD N M O 0 0, O�A I111.. fV�- < 4} N N M o0 r 88 N M r r a0 m S • 4 N N 0 C N N . yy W z o 0 n „ ch m o j e g w D m u 0 o LL gt fgz Ubb gj E co Li m �, LU 7y z UHhH ,.U1iH gOU o Nv- 0 to 07 MAR 0 2 2006 COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky J. Fluhart Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Kay Christensen DATE: March 1, 2006 SUBJECT: Grant Tower Project STAFF CONTACT: D.J. Baxter (535-7735) DOCUMENT TYPE: Memorandum RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should consider the funding options presented and approve a funding package that will allow the Grant Tower project to proceed to completion. BUDGET IMPACT: The City's share of the overall project cost is approximately $11 million. The Council will determine what, if any, portion of that cost should come from the General Fund and how the remainder will be funded. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Union Pacific reactivated the 900 South Railroad line in 2001 after years of disuse. At that time, Union Pacific also improved the line so it could carry fully loaded freight trains. Today up to twelve trains a day travel along the line. Use of the 900 South line allows northbound trains to avoid the delay caused by the Grant Tower curves. The Grant Tower curves (Grant Tower) are located between the intersections of North Temple / 500 West and Folsom Avenue/ 700 West in downtown Salt Lake City. It is through these curves that interstate freight trains make the directional change from southbound to westbound, or from eastbound to northbound. The curves are so tight that trains must slow to 5-10 mph, meaning that longer trains can require 40 minutes to move through the downtown area, blocking city streets and damaging the region's air quality as both vehicles and trains idle waiting for trains to move through the curves. The only way for Union Pacific to increase its capacity through Grant Tower is to widen the angle of the curved tracks to allow trains to move through the area more quickly. The project will cost approximately $50 million to complete. The solution will involve removal of tracks from Folsom Avenue, construction of new tracks on South Temple, relocation of underground utilities, installation of new traffic and railroad signals, and land acquisition, all the while maintaining railroad traffic through the area. When the project is complete, Union Pacific will abandon the 900 South line and give the property to the City along with Union Pacific's property holdings in the Folsom Avenue corridor. Salt Lake City, Union Pacific, and UDOT studied this project in the late 1990s in conjunction with the development of the Gateway project and the consolidation of railroad tracks in the downtown area, but the costs were too great and no agreement could be reached. Salt Lake City has recently reached an agreement with Union Pacific to eliminate rail traffic on the 900 South line if the City and Union Pacific are able to jointly secure the $50 million required for the Grant Tower reconfiguration. That goal is now within sight. UDOT and the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) both support this project, which is now listed in WFRC's adopted Long Range Transportation Plan. The Folsom Avenue rail corridor and the 900 South rail corridor are both included in Salt Lake City's Open Space Master Plan (map 7 and map 11 respectively). The project is possible now because of the simultaneous construction of commuter rail. Therefore, there are certain time constraints that must be a consideration. UTA's commuter rail project is already under construction in Weber and Davis Counties. Construction in the Salt Lake City area, in and around Grant Tower, will commence this summer and conclude in late 2007 or early 2008. To gain the benefits of constructing commuter rail and the Grant Tower realignment simultaneously, the Grant Tower project must move forward immediately. Salt Lake City's role will be to acquire property and relocate utilities this summer, and complete street work and crossing improvements in the 2007 construction season. If we miss this window of opportunity, we could not begin to undertake the Grant Tower realignment until 2008, when commuter rail is complete. At that time, the project's cost and complexity will increase substantially because of inflation and the need 2 to construct the Grant Tower improvements while maintaining both freight and commuter rail train traffic. Project Components 1. The South Temple line currently consists of two parallel tracks. The City will buy up properties to allow for an additional track to run parallel along the south edge and for the curve of the tracks to be made wider. The land needed for this right of way is only 10 to 15 feet in width, but in some cases it will be necessary to buy an entire parcel of land (the excess could be resold at a later date). Some land will also be purchased to allow access to properties impacted by the relocated tracks. There are approximately 40 pieces of property that must be purchased, but fewer than 10 of those will be entire parcels. The land necessary for track right of way will be deeded to Union Pacific so realignment can begin. When the rail realignment project is complete and Union Pacific can abandon the 900 South line, the 900 South and Folsom Avenue properties will be deeded to Salt Lake City. 2. Tracks will be abandoned in the Folsom Avenue area from 700 to 1200 West as soon as the realigned tracks are built and activated. This land, which is approximately 100 feet in width, will be given to the City. In studies conducted jointly by the City and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, this corridor has been identified as a desirable location to bring some of the flow of City Creek back to the surface, as part of an urban habitat restoration project. The City and the Corps have developed preliminary plans for this project, and the effort could proceed as soon as the rail realignment is complete and funds became available. The City Administration views this as an excellent opportunity to enhance the Euclid neighborhood with a natural amenity that would attract new residential development on the west edge of downtown. The Administration also believes this would substantially further the City's ongoing efforts to reduce the dividing effect of I-15 between the east and west sides of the City. The daylighting of City Creek in this area is contemplated and supported by the Euclid Area Master Plan currently under development (photo and artist's rendering attached). 3. When the new track is completed in the Grant Tower area, Union Pacific will abandon the 900 South line and give the land to the City. The track runs from 700 West to Redwood Road and the right of way corridor is approximately 50 to 60 feet in width. 3 The reconfiguration of the Grant Tower curves will provide substantial local and regional benefits. In addition to allowing the removal of the 900 South line, thereby restoring quiet to a City neighborhood, the Grant Tower project will improve traffic flow on City streets that must cross the tracks, and will improve air quality by reducing emissions from idling vehicles and idling and accelerating locomotives, and end the noise pollution and damage caused from the vibrations created by the passing trains on the 900 South line. It will also allow for the creation of green space in the abandoned rail corridors. Total Project Funding Sources As stated, the project is estimated by Union Pacific to cost approximately $50 million. Salt Lake City and Union Pacific sought and received $5 million for the Grant Tower reconfiguration project in the federal SAFETEA-LU transportation spending bill. UTA will contribute $15 million on work that must also be completed to accommodate commuter rail. Union Pacific has agreed to cover $15 million of the costs. This leaves a gap of $15 million. The City's share of the project would cost approximately $11 million. In the session just completed, the Legislature authorized the expenditure of up to $3.5 million for the project from a transportation sales tax collected in Salt Lake County. Therefore, Salt Lake City is responsible for contributing approximately $11 million in funds and in-kind work to make this project a reality. It will be necessary to assure that funds are available as needed, as in the case of property acquisition (approximately $3.5 to $4 million), which must begin immediately. 4 Salt Lake City Expenditure Timeline (Approximate) February 2006- $50,000- Property Appraiser $50,000- Consultant-Utility Relocation Design $50,000- Boundary survey and description March 2006- $200,000- Environmental Assessment (all properties and consultant) April 2006- $70,000- Finalize utility design $200,000- Retain project management and street design consultant $2,830,805- Right-of-way acquisition (less appraiser fee) $650,000- 700 South property acquisition for quiet zone $250,000- Relocation and demolition June 2006- $900,000- Fund utility relocation $126,000- City creek conduit Feb.-June $5,376,805 August 2006- $165,000-Continue consultant street design $418,000-Consultant Program Management and Project Const. Engineer and Overview December 2006- $1,930,000-Roadway improvements $880,000-Gate and signals for quiet zone July-Dec. $3,393,000 TOTAL Feb.-Dec.$8,769,805 20% Contingency- $1,147,800 (applied to $3,739,000-excluding property acquisition and appraiser, which already includes a contingency, and environmental assessment which has no contingency applied) 10% for inflation $991,760 GRAND TOTAL$10,909,365 5 Funding Options Background: 1. General Fund Revenue/Fund Balance/RDA (no bonding). If the RDA Board decided to use Depot District RDA funds for a substantial portion of the costs, it might be possible to reduce the remaining cost of the basic project to a level that could be borne by the General Fund without the need to bond. The RDA Board could decide to use Depot District funds for quiet zone design, engineering and construction ($1.2 million) and for the City Creek conduit ($200,000), for a potential expenditure of $1,400,000, leaving $9,500,000 to come from the General Fund. In addition to that amount, the Board could also decide to pick up other discrete items in the Depot District plus quiet zone work at 300 and 400 North. This would require an expenditure of up to an additional $1,900,000, for a total RDA expenditure of $3,300,000, and would leave $7,600,000 to come from the General Fund. (Bond background information from a January 30, 2006 memo from Kelly Murdock, Financial Advisor to Salt Lake City Corporation) 2. Sales Tax Revenue Bonds The City should evaluate using sales tax revenue bonds to fund the Grant Tower project. Sales tax revenue bonds, like most other types of revenue bonds, require a stream of revenues that are pledged by the issuer for repayment to the investor/bondholder. Such bonds have not been used by the City in the distant past and have only become a financing option more recently due to clarifications made within the past four years by the Utah State Legislature. The City's sales tax revenue bonds derive their credit strength from the City pledging its statutory one-percent of sales tax collections as their security. However, it must be noted that while sales tax revenues are pledged to the bondholders, none of these revenues, in the City's case, are budgeted or used to actually satisfy debt service requirements. Debt service for this category of bonds has been provided historically from amounts allocated within the City's Capital Improvement Project ("CIP") Fund. 6 Current tax policy will not allow the City to use tax-exempt bond proceeds to purchase or develop land that will be turned over to Union Pacific, even if the City will later receive back from them land of equal or greater value. It is estimated that $4,555,074 of the total project cost is related to land purchase and developments that would be ineligible for tax- exempt bonding. It has been suggested by the City's financial advisor, Kelly Murdock, that the City could issue taxable bonds for the ineligible portion until the project is complete and Union Pacific has turned land over to the City, and then those bonds could be converted to tax-exempt status. Tax-exempt financing-eligible and ineligible costs Civil, Grading, Drainage: $555,660 - not eligible Grade Crossing/Street Improvements: $793,528 - eligible Utilities: $1,226,579- eligible Fiber optic relocation $ 195,275- not eligible (Structural: (no city costs) $0 UPRR Track work (no city costs) $0 Right-of-Way (demo and relocation) $396,900- not eligible (some portion may be) Property Acquisition/Relo/NEPA $3,407,239- not eligible City Creek Pipe $200,037 - eligible Increment for Quiet Zone $2,832,315 - eligible (if we own the crossing gates) Increment for Street Improvements $1,301,832 -eligible TOTAL: $10,909,365 TOTAL Eligible for Tax-Exempt: $ 6,354,291 NOTE: Many of these items are also eligible for RDA funds, so it's not likely we would need to bond for a full $6.5 million - this is just the maximum cost of items that are eligible for tax-exempt financing, according to our tax consultant. In the alternative, the City could bond for the full $6.5 million and RDA could contribute a portion to the debt service payment if their money is not otherwise committed. 3. Federal Railroad Loan It might be possible to borrow all or a portion of the funds needed for the City's portion of the Grant Tower project through the Federal Railroad 7 Administration's (FRA's) Railroad Rehabilitaton & Improvement Financing (RRIF) program. The program is intended to provide direct loans of up to 100% of a railroad project which improves rail facilities including trackage. In general the terms of the loan would be as follows: • 10 — 30 year term based on Treasury Rates (currently 4.7%) • Pay a loan application fee of up to .5% depending on the complexity of the deal. • The process begins when we send a letter to request consideration. FRA will respond within 30 days and will confiiin what the actual loan application fee will be. • After the complete application is submitted, FRA will have 90 days to accept or reject the application. • FRA does have to follow NEPA requirements, but we may be able to use the environmental report which UTA conducted to meet the requirement and/or the fact that the reconfiguration is running through existing rights of way may mean that FRA would not need an environmental report. • There would be a credit risk premium which is determined by the perceived risk of the project and borrower. • The loan would require both a cash flow sources to make payments as well as some sort of collateral. Typically FRA has taken a lien against trackage or the underlying right of way to secure the loan. If the City were to borrow funds or grant a lien on its property, constitutional debt issues might arise that could require an election, depending on the source of repayment of the loan. • Funds can be used for trackage, quiet zone improvements, and infrastructure related to the reconfiguration (i.e., the adjacent streets need to have new curb, gutter, sidewalk because of the changes in trackage). While state and local government entities are eligible to apply for these loans, to date loans have only been applied for and received by railroad carriers. Salt Lake City would be the first governmental entity to go through the process. If we want to use this program, we need to begin the process soon because we will be a test case. 8 4. Class C Road Funds It has been suggested that the City could use Class C Road Funds to pay eligible expenses related to the Grant Tower Project. The City receives about $6 million per year in Class C Road Funds which come from the state gasoline tax and other related state highway taxes. By state law, these funds must be spent on maintenance and construction of city streets. There are approximately $2 million in Class C related Grant Tower expenses, including actual road work and track crossings of city streets. Of the approximately $6 million the City receives annually, approximately $3 million goes to the Streets Division operating budget and funds maintenance activities such as street patching, snow plowing, and street resurfacing. The remaining $3 million goes to the CIP where historically half of that ($1.5 M) goes to an annual contract to overlay city streets. The overlay program is essential to maintaining the viability of the city street system and the program could use twice the amount available. The remaining $1.5 million per year goes to arterial and collector street reconstruction projects and towards local match requirements for federally funded street reconstruction projects. For example the FY2006-07 CIP budget requests funds for the following projects: • 900 South Rehabilitation (State Street to 700 East) — This project follows up with road reconstruction after last year's installation of a major stoini drain. $1,700,000 in Class C has gone to this project in prior years. This money has been held waiting until the full amount necessary for the project is in hand. In the March budget opening a request is being made for the City Council to pre-approve an additional $700,000 in the FY2006-07 budget to allow 900 South to be bid this spring. Bidding this spring instead of waiting until July would allow enough time to complete the project this year. This road was not left in good condition following the stoiin drain installation. An extensive, quality patch job was not done because of the plan to remove and replace it with a rehabilitation project. • 1300 East (South Temple to 500 South) — $200,000 local match to a federal highway grant for road reconstruction. 9 • 1300 South Viaduct — $300,000 local match to a federal highway grant for rehabilitation of this bridge. • Concrete Street rehabilitation— $200,000 for major rehabilitation of city concrete streets. A large portion of the FY2007-08 request for Class C funds will probably go to 500 East (900 S to 1300 S) reconstruction, approximately $950,000. This is another project which follows up after installation of a major stoiiil drain line. The line will be installed this summer, and the plan is to rebuild the road in 2007. The diversion of Class C funds away from the above projects will obviously cause their delay and that, in turn, will delay other street rehabilitation and reconstruction projects that have been identified in the ten- year plan. There is a request for early approval of the FY2006/07 budget for $1.5 M for the overlay project, again to allow for bidding the project in the spring. There is also $550,000 in the FY2005/06 Class C budget which was approved for the 500 East project. That funding has been held until it could be combined with funding that will be requested in the FY2007/08 budget to build 500 East in 2007. In summary, the following funds are committed but not yet encumbered and could be diverted to the Grant Tower project: Funds banked for 900 South (Main to 700 East)- $1,700,000 Class C Fund request for FY2006/2007 $ 700,000 (to complete the 900 South project) Funds banked for 500 East project $ 550,000 Overlay funds for 2006 projects $1,500,000 TOTAL $4,450,000 10 5. An additional bonding consideration- Expanded Grant Tower Project (including park completion) This Memorandum and all previous documents and discussions with the City Council have dealt with the cost to complete the project to the point that Union Pacific could abandon the 900 South and the Folsom Avenue lines and turn both properties over to the City. The cost estimates previously listed in the Memorandum do not include funds to design and build parks in either the Folsom Avenue or the 900 South corridors. According to bond counsel, the City will need to do a minimum amount of planting in these two areas to qualify for sales tax revenue bonds. The Parks Division has determined that basic native erosion control seeding could be accomplished for $300,000 for both areas and bond counsel has told the City that this should be adequate to meet the requirements for bonding. This amount is included in Attachment 1 entitled "Phased Trailway Development Estimates," but it is not included in the Expenditure Timeline on page 5 of this document. If necessary for bonding, this would be the final work completed in the Grant Tower project. The City does not know at this point the cost of potential environmental mitigation measures that might need to be done on each site prior to the seeding, but preliminary environmental testing done on both corridors has shown no major environmental issues. There are plans to do much more in both corridors as funds permit. The Council may want to consider what work they would like to see done as part of the current project and what should be considered as part of the 10 year CIP plan. The City Parks Division has prepared a document that breaks the costs into two phases. That document is included as Attachment 1. FINANCING OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: 1. Use of General Fund/RDA Revenue- With the support of RDA funds, it might be possible to get the total cost for the project to a point that could be borne by the General Fund without the need to bond. Option 1 a- RDA would cover the cost of Quiet Zone work and street improvements already allocated in the Deport District, plus the cost of the 11 City Creek conduit in the Depot District, for a total of$1,400,000 (assuming the City is covering engineering and construction management fees and contingency), leaving approximately $9,500,000 to be covered by the General Fund. Option lb- In addition to the costs covered in Option la, RDA also does additional items in the Depot District and Quiet Zone work at 300/400 North, for a combined total cost of $3,300,000, (again assuming the City is covering engineering and construction management fees and contingency), leaving a total of approximately $7,600,000 to be covered by the General Fund. The Depot District generates approximately $1 million in disposable funds a year. The RDA has already allocated $1.4 million ($1.2 million remaining from City-wide Housing funds for quiet zone work, and $200,000 for City Creek daylighting work). This commitment would require all disposable Depot District funds for the coming two years. 2. Issuance of Sales Tax Revenue Bonds The Council could decide to bond for all or part of the cost of the Grant Tower project, depending on whether the Council is interested in a short-team taxable bond component. Of course, any of the options described below could also be combined with some infusion of RDA funds, Class C road funds, or other options to reduce the amount of fund balance and/or bond funds needed. Option 2a- The City could use fund balance to pay for the project costs through May ($4,350,805) and bond for the remainder of the cost ($6,558,560), or for that portion eligible for tax-exempt bonding. Option 2b- The City could use fund balance as in Option 2a, but bond for the full amount ($10,909,365) and reimburse the General Fund with bond proceeds, assuming the City Council was willing to support a short-term taxable bond. Option 2c- Using either option 2a or 2b, the City could choose to do a combined bond issue to include the Fleet Facility ($24 million). The City's Financial Advisor estimates that with an increase in interest rates of only 25 basis points over the next 12 months the City would save approximately 12 $750,000 in principal and interest and bonding costs over the life of the bond by combining the projects into one bond issue. With the uncertainty of future interest rates and the economies of scale from a combined bond issue, the City's financial advisor recommends that, if possible, the City pursue a mid-to-late summer, 2006, sales tax revenue bond issue that funds both Grant Tower and the Fleet Facility. Option 2d- Because portions of the Grant Tower project are not eligible for tax-exempt financing, the City could consider bonding for eligible projects currently in the 10 year CIP plan and then use the freed up funds for Grant Tower. There are currently an estimated $5,893,024 in project related funds available that could be diverted to the Grant Tower project and replaced with the proceeds of a sales tax bond. However, the debt service on that amount will obviously reduce the overall funds available in CIP for pay as you go. A list of potential bondable CIP projects is included as Attachment 2. Option2e- The Council may also want to review bonding options for the TRAX Connection and/or the 500 West/200 South Park Block work. Salt Lake City's portion of the TRAX Connection funding is estimated to be $8.5 million. The RDA has already appropriated $2.4 million of the $8.5 million TRAX Connection costs. Costs for extending the 500 West Park Blocks through the 200 South intersection are estimated to be $4 million. The 500 West Park Block costs are roughly split at $2 million for roadway work (SLC) and $2 million for power line work (RDA). Completing the Park Block work in conjunction with the TRAX connection will save the Park Block project an estimated $1 million (above the $4 million). The bond for both projects would be $10.1 million ($8.5 - $2.4 + $4.0). If Salt Lake City were to bond for the projects, the Hub Enterprise Fund would have approximately $5.2 million in cash (pending reimbursement of the existing 05 and 06 FTA appropriations) to repay a portion of the $6.4 million dollar General Fund loan to the Hub project. The $5.2 million repayment to the General Fund could then be used to fund the Grant Tower project. The advantages of bonding for the TRAX Connection and Park Blocks projects are that the project costs can be absorbed by the debt service and/or SLC/RDA appropriations over a 10-year period and the project has the flexibility to use both RDA CBD and DD funding. Sales Tax Bond Process (see Attachment 3) 13 Note: We have assumed, for discussion purposes, that interest rates will likely be 25 basis points higher in 2007 than they are at this time. It is this assumption that makes up the larger component of the savings outlined in this memo. 4. Alternative Financing Options If the City Council prefers not to bond or to limit the amount bonded, this Memorandum has provided infoiiiiation on two other possible sources of funds- the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA's) Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) program, and Class C Road Funds. Either or both sources could be considered in connection with a bond or instead of a bond, with the limitations and considerations outlined in the Memorandum. 14 ATTACHMENT 1 PHASED TRAILWAY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES 900 S. fiom 700 West to Redwood Road—(10 blocks) Phase One Phase Two • Environmental Mitigation Work ???? • 2 Street Crossings (signalized) @$100K each $ 200,000 • Trailway Development $1,000,000 • Security Lighting $1,000,000 • Landscape and Irrigation $3,300,000 • Basic Native Erosion Control Seeding (in lieu of L & I) $ 200,000 • Benches, Drinking Fountains, & Bike Racks $ 100,000 • Peace Garden Expansion— South Side Parcel of Property $ 600,000 • 900 South Jordan River Park Expansion—N. Side Parcel $ 500,000 Phase One Project Guestimate $1,500,000 • Design and Administrative Costs (25%) $ 375,000 Total Phase One Only Guestimate S1,875,000 Phase Two Project Guestimate $5,400,000 • Design and Administrative Costs (25%) $1,350,000 Total Phase Two Only Guestimate $6,750,000 Total Project Guestimate (900 South Site) $8,625,000 Folsom Trailway from I-15 to Jordan River—(5 blocks) • Environmental Mitigation Work ???? • 3 Street Crossings (signalized) @$100K each $ 300,000 • Trailway Development $ 500,000 • Stream Opening and Development $1,500,000 • Security Lighting $ 500,000 • Landscape and Irrigation $1,750,000 • Basic Native Erosion Control Seeding (in lieu of L & I) $ 100,000 • Benches, Drinking Fountains, & Bike Racks $ 50,000 Phase One Project Guestimate S2,450,000 • Design and Administrative Costs (25%) $ 612,000 Total Phase One Only Guestimate $3 062 000 Phase Two Project Guestimate $2,250,000 • Design and Administrative Costs (25%) $ 562,500 Total Phase Two Only Guestimate $2,812,500 Total Project Guestimate (900 South Site) $5,874,500 15 ATTACHMENT 2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CASH ON HAND This list is created for the purpose of considering what funds might be available for bonding for the portion of the Grant Tower project that does not qualify for tax-exempt bonding. The list includes those projects that have remaining cash (as of February 2006) that would likely qualify for sales tax bonds. It is not a definitive list and should be considered only for discussion purposes. Project Remaining Cash Park playground replacement-Citywide $100,878 State Street-streetlight replacement $ 27,443 Salt Dome-Bonneville Blvd. $380,020 Rotary Glen-park improvements $225,000 Sugarhouse Park-irrigation renovation $145,000 Quiet Zone $ 63,391 Liberty Park improvements $ 46,517 13th East Street Crossing $200,000 Stratford Park ADA Playground $ 3,083 Sugarhouse Park irrigation renovation $ 10,000 Jordan River Trailhead $161,002 ADA transition at parks $124,919 100 North Street lighting $ 17,110 Fenway/Strong Court SID match $161,494 Dog off-leash parks $ 46,400 Emigration Visitors District $ 40,518 Fleet Street Facility improvements $ 98,640 Sugarhouse Rails to Trails $ 85,652 Pioneer Park $599,016 Local street reconstruction $1,145,598 Safety lighting- citywide $ 50,000 Bicycles facilities development $ 50,000 Safety lights addition $ 75,000 Jordan River Trail improvements $ 77,720 Jordan River Trail safety lights $ 62,600 Rotary Glen Parks $ 23,728 16 Project Remaining Cash Jordan River Trail improvements $ 70,000 Tracy Aviary perimeter fence $115,916 Sidewalk replacement SID $597,026 East Capitol Street reconstruction $ 40,000 Rose Park Lane improvements $ 30,000 North Rosewood Park Sports Complex $350,000 North Rosewood Park reconfiguration $488,400 Pedestrian traffic signal installation $ 75,706 Fleet Street facility $497,000 Jordan River Trailhead $118,998 Jordan River Trailway improvements $157,683 TOTAL $6,561,458 Other CIP Cash on Hand Contingency (83-04099) $530,307 Traffic calming (3 accounts) $382,288 Cost overruns (holding-83-05099) $504,349 Contingency (83-06099) $171,888 Surplus land cash account $360,945 Percent for Art (83-04009) $ 29,931 Percent for Art (83-05009) $ 60,000 Percent for Art (83-06016) $ 60,000 Land open space matching $ 15,600 Open Space Land Trust $194,354 FTZ warehouse $331,199 Asphalt Plant sale $ 75,884 TOTAL $2,716,745 Note- Class C Road Funds are not included in these figures 17 !\ _,_ _ . _ „ . . . ! : ',: ATTACHMENT 3 FARE:, Public Finance ,$ ,-� * SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Sales Tax Revenue Bonds* Series 2006 (Grant Tower Rail Reconfiguration [and Fleet Facility?] Project) TIMETABLE of EVENTS (02/10/06) (FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY) DATE/DAY EVENT RESPONSIBILITY Short-form RFP sent electronically CT Underwriter RFP's Due U Selection of Underwriters. 3:00 p.m., office of CT, CA, FA the City Treasurer First Drafts of Bond Documents Distributed BC to Financing Team Conference Call with Financing Team to All Hands discuss bond issue, timetable, etc. March 7 (Tues) City Council Briefed on Bonding Project(s) CO, CT, FA March 14 (Tues) City Council sets date for Public Hearing CC (April 4`") March 19 (Sun) First publication of`Notice of Public Hearing' N in Deseret Morning News and The Salt Lake Tribune March 26 (Sun) Second publication of`Notice of Public N Hearing' in Deseret Morning News and The Salt Lake Tribune March 28 (Tues) Copies of Parameters Resolution transmitted BC to City (Rocky Fluhart's Office) April 4 (Tues) Public Hearing on the Proposed Bond Issue CC April 4 (Tues) City Council Adopts Parameters Resolution CC April 5 (Wed) Document Review Session. Offices of Bond All Hands Counsel April 7 (Fri) Ratings [and Insurance] Packets Sent Out F FA Week of April 10 Rating Discussion with Moody's Week of April 10 Rating Discussion with Fitch CT, FA 18 April 20 (Thurs) Bond Insurance Quotes Received FA April 20 (Thurs) Moody's Rating Received FA April 20 (Thurs) Fitch Rating Received FA April 25 (Tues) Bond Resolution and Bond Purchase BC Agreement delivered to City Offices April 25 (Tues) POS in PDF Format available for distribution BC, U to potential investors May 2 (Tues) Sale of Bonds U May 2 (Tues) City Council considers and adopts Bond CC Resolution and Bond Purchase Agreement May 4 (Thurs) Final Official Statement sent to printer BC May 5 (Fri) Final Official Statement sent to Investors P May 15 (Mon) Closing Memorandum Distributed FA May 15 (Mon) Closing Documents Distributed BC May 22 (Mon) Pre-closing*. Office of Bond Counsel All Hands May 23 (Tues) Bond Closing. Offices of Bond Counsel All Hands Legend: BC: Bond/Disclosure Counsel, Chapman and Cutler (Richard Scott& Ryan Bjerke) CA: City Attorney, (Boyd Fergusen) CC: City Council, Salt Lake City CO: City Officials, Salt Lake City (Kay Christensen, D.J. Baxter) CT: City Treasurer's Office, (Dan Mule and Randy Hillier) FA: Financial Advisor,Wells Fargo Public Finance (Kelly Murdock) N: Newspapers, (Deseret Morning News and The Salt Lake Tribune P: Printer, Rose Printing U: Underwriter (tbd) *Preliminary,subject to change—FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 19 . (,. . ,...rr1 \ •C (.><• l., r* 4illi- Cla• 4 L.,1 '‘' ( LT:L---... L---'1-'' I - ll'a"lit'' .• I ONION - tt::;Q _ on p I 1 r...17_..._...1„ = as C 0•4 '- k..2 ill _ • l--, ; • .1- I 1111°11111: 1. . 1•... • 0 I tael= .1, ii 71 Mo : . . 1 . . • - ,---, Q L.' ,...... ,..___. tiQ l/ I-I Lai (T). _ .' ,_.., 11 ut? L.7 L.._' 0 .„ ,--, - . .... . • ., L.2 ...... .....) . ,.• 0,.., ii 1 '' •. • — ! ...... _. .... 11 1 • O. ..-. s • ,...• ;Ili • . . .. . '• :- • ,.., , . • ief' -*s'•• .. . V • MI . ... • ' . = . • , .,- •••••.1 I Immil 0 i , • 11 I- , • A- 1 1 _ > . ' ... . A , I ..,. rD .... ; . .. co •.. X . ', • i LI t. ......-1.VI 4 . .. , ei rD . - •,: ._... ' f Um, •,. ••••=1. 11 ,I i i,_ 4 1 ' - ...., . , = * - I 'i i IN U a) co N 'p 0 0 ._ N co 0 U cO co coco (O co in coO '0 to coc•�) v.0 o — — _J c Q 2 a c W > L E N a) ail P '13 P ,y ,„ zl v )l CDCD a) ate) a) CI a) N CD N W O CO CV= 0) e- C. NI- ~ CNC M O M co co -c CO M coo D �. cQ o .' Y U a) Y C) U U - rJ U m co a _) a)= aJ Ya) 0 J J :Tr as W J -J J - a) J -J �.. cot) 4- + J C a)tz: as (1) >, a) `5 V) V) CO O Q U Q 7 ° .0 > > .0 O N N co N c o 0 cB Q Q U > L .- Q a) > 0 a) E "O C C O) < Co ` II 2N N ti O c c O .i... 0 c cQ < a) 2 "� a) C as (/) N o I L C -C a) 7 cc; C) Off. ,�, � _N M07CO CL 2 Q Cr) --� to (!) f� CA N � I� O� Oo co 0 N � o CAOt1) OCooNNW OW CO It CO V' M I- CO c}• '- Co' .- NNtorl) rlO A- LOLOL0 M r' d' 0) CO1- CONCp CoN v- 00O .- CCO C I,- C CO OO COON- 00NJ- T.. 0 0 -c 0 .0 -C 0) a) C Z L 2 In C 0 2 o ca 0 Oaxi5 V = >+ ce C w ce ct x c ce x ce x x x Q Q w ct co N E 4O 42 O .O 4O .O .0 �0 O O O O p ` ` Z 0 0 a at O O O O O O O O O O O 0 W 7 a a a a a 0 a a a a a a a a a a Q- a a 0 C N N N N N N N N 00 = N 00 N _0 C Ct C y: 0 >'co l0 O coC 1 0 O a) C a) Z U m a C cn a " o _� C a 'gym = CU >, U) >, ca -c pm N � g a) c C at) f� , U m m ' O V N co O O C 12 2 c- E a c a. L C .n 3 � > > 2 >,, _ c V .E c � co _ r U Z. I2 Q m 0 as ce2OY U CCI 4-2 , 2iccOmmj 0 W to O O to to to to t to t In N Q ,O W - 00 O O O O \O O �O O O0 O O oO C O di M dam' dam• dam' '7 CV N ,. N N N N � (M (oO (�O M d ,:t. v v ter' to to to tO • U a) .` "C3 ifi O = P' v to C0 CO to to CO to to O U Co co o w _ N IT) II5 rn a) rn CO c L E J `o @ , r — coin o Ecli U o m Cl) w w p U) ) a 73 U) E L 12 flIEi a a) N c N N ri a co W O a) N N. O N f. •-- co Ce) CO �- co to In to ) U) Cl) O U co N W to = 'c' o aS co o wc co Cs 0 - 0 p °Co > cr U a) E S °c° coo m ++ co CO J •= p U Q Wcc) 0) p al O (n > C° O UIll Q c O Cn c U) o O O ca a) (0 .c o H 0 a) Cl) Li a c > ..0c aS (I)Cn E o d. co(0 d0' N Q c � M �t co d• CO to CO 0 Z O) '- l— a _ o 4) N -p aci a TA) c o c o ° ° c ° C Ec�wo• ° oN L ° moo .° � al p 3 co E ° c c c � 70 •= a N �c m o ff m m N o) o = o • ina E 0 C C 05c2 --cca c t >, - alU)) a) m TO (� p U C 3 NN OU a) 2 'a t c o o m m EY E F.. C +� .0 L 3 N N , E LE1 N c o w W co 1) N 'a N > > a) oY n 0 o c c x a) cu cn LEo a) — c CDmn O O c0 Oa O o ° ° o :� 0 ° o 0 0 3 U 2 = _ ix 0) ... co = c ca O• a) coo m co .5 a.0 in o mwix c •= ?� N � cn p C N a) co a) .o m a) = N -0 a) ° ° aU) 0 = m 8 8 L p cn t O 4- m X .5 U w s 2 a ° ` >` va) m a) .3 U m cn a) 0 0 o V U W O Q ° Qo -oc°a occo O o CIS o- E a) .. t 't N >+ a? a.N 't a) " c c .c +_ 3 cn .o L a) c or O 0 0 ''O .0 C a) O 0 O aa) a3 N U 0 p a>' o n•› :� N a 7 0 a. a0. a c 3 C° C a c°i c c = r o- � � N u) -aU) v°) .0- as> O .c ° u) -o a 7 O O O O a) CU co 7 S co a N m 0 N 0 a) = N = co O 7 - .-) m a) ° c = U) co co 'a 'D C U � b co E Co 3 -a .'2 a � � �c cGwcCs to E co p) C co O 0 Cc) 0 C to C W0_ a o Cl) c c3 c ` 00 0 Cl) ° o a) < c cow U -p • co o as m Z as 2 al al c , U 2 cn E a. c 2 _ U Q 'C a) co ca (n a) a CD C CU Z a) > Cl) t C D. a) N O a O N cU aa)) •V C O +, co m C ° ) NQ COQCC2CCJ CO ¢ Q o 0 to LU t1) to U) IX) U) to tf) to t() N W O O O 0 o O O O O O O O M <1.— O O ' c) d• 0 .a• O O co co I N O) Q co co N N ' .- V N N N N CV O lC) 0 l 0 CEO N. N- CO co CO CO CO CO CO U •C N 5 co to N. 0 co tr N. (O CO w o c - c� - in 0 -c to N +0., • E J ca u @ U •i TO CR W ( 2 E c a) © or c.) c� a) a) a) c ro U0 L a) a) C.) C.) 0 0 0 •- > > > N O N c` L CD E =j,U O L L > . 'C con N o 2I> N a a W Z ) M co co r. = () U) N N- N N CD CV 0 Crsn'U N COM "tC) a 00 � NNo � M m � M V• co C) a) Tr It) N O) It) UC) LC) O 0 '- CO Cr 00 J J L 0 0)LU Q 0 o co a) a) N 0 N O C C Q c 0�0 LL1 e► L a) p OQ < co a> 0 C) 00 0 70 ;0 U rc0 cc V ›. in- J 5 O U 7 7 m = ., co (n V) V) Lu rnN �• N COti)N 4 (N r) LNC) U) N r- e- L O N - co CO CU a Cri Y $ 3 c N o 3 >� o vL0 + ` a) N •-a CD . V � 0.) CCLL O ,a m pN tII co a•+.F a' c16 ON a) )-Q ` 2 O v cccv O caoaym ° L L c o � 0 oLoo OO C ` LOC •roOcQ = c) a) C o OZ a owO L N p _c c6 B E _c .0 3Na n __ 1-55: • M o 0 c cv L E "U rn�, a) •c OTI= o C ccn O O p o 0 +L' a) c CO Q) .C5 .0 > N . N c6 a) N N L 0 4 Oa = t' (a aa) c °'o -o oo` •. > N•(3 U ,4e O .0 c a Q U o c c = w N L �' c c f6 oo .� coEa) Ec •� � ro � � a) LU «- c � � o 0 Y L Q a) 3 C a a) O N 'O .c E D � N c u v c a) p` ° 42 E •C e � � � v - � u, a nso °' > c oc o c0 o rn rn o O O O o > W O .- • a.fl N c6 ca cu > 4- 0 O Q O C p a) c .0 O o •C •C -C a a a a a m O "o • fl. N > N N 0 U C) c 0 0 0 a 11000 co o 7 o ocs) 3 O a w =O .a 7 C L c = L j O N 'c •C a O QQ• O O a : Q. a) 43 ao 3 — o . 1— ID aa) oI— N N >- N N ( nu)) C � N U) 1O 2 _ Q a)ti c 8 U cNa) = OW 0 E —) i V o 2 3 •c cc Z = )e a c° N N ° E °oLi) N ° E E c m C - s = JO Y c a c CO O '> coi o o L a) > Q E w cul a ' •N• • co co �t E W Y Z Z o)) C/) � � 05. CA I- iI - O as > .` o f cn -� o cn (ncn � cn � q o 0 0 •" 000000 �p It) It) a(n � N Q to 0) 0 CA o) o) Q p a) 0 0 C NNNNNN oM -7 EV 4 Ncco p `� cccccc000c0cca M � 0 � Q) Q) 0 t) .` U) E Cfl CO u0 CO CO CO o C o ce J_ 'E 0 o Q @ > z w ca H. m W L L L '` O �jd E a) O O 1) 0 a) a) a) E CA v a W z 0 I a 0 0 o o co Et 00 0 0 0 co o 7 , a. co v o U W U) co0 -1 cli> c� —IL Ca Sii. J U)Cl > o - O Cl.) Q > U W N a ca c COCD ;,,1 as 0 co O coi _ J C/: a) v I Q O W m W o o) cn co co v' • N CO - - N a) a) ccQ c > b _ 0 _ ? NI CD > N •` '0 O a O a N +. O t. U 0 -54 r t o c 3 0 -ttt t t -t -t 't -t -tt - -t -t tt N o fa .5, 13 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o .4 u aaaaaa as as aaaa aaa aa£ co >, a aaaaaa as as aaaa o. aa a, acv o 0 •Fs. .E) O 00000 > > oo > > o 0 000 o0rna) s E a 0 0 u) cn co co U) u) u) co u) u) 0 co co u) u) u) u) ca _o .-- • th 'C Ur( OC (0 O � ooy O5. , YUO E U r cu +•; N C N U '° V U v o c tit E U v ca t w m e N go O W o Fa E 0 //O�a� In 0 3 E C OI@)I 0 f j Y 0 cL z E N L •u V E a) O .0 , v G N O Cd O °� O C O Q c L c �J E c7 x ,, - O (f 5 E" cn c >, •+0 m Z � Gd � � xU u o o aa) o cv ,4 a� 030 CO = cd cu 0 a_ E u 0 CL i f-? 0 .. C > 3 rn'� N E - u okaa) '4toico Lm °O - od c`s LE_ Eo .. n3v � E co E � : E U � NY mU � Jcnl— WV o vp o LO O N W 0 c") f" CO cu Q N o0 I-- N e— SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENT #4 - FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 DATE: February 21, 2006 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #4 STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones CC: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Steve Fawcett, Chief Dinse, Chief Querry, LeRoy Hooton, Louis Zunguze, Rick Graham, Tim Harpst, Jerry Burton, Jim Lewis, Gordon Hoskins, Luann Clark, Greg Davis, Krista Dunn, Shannon Ashby, Sherrie Collins, Laurie Donnell, Susi Kontgis, Kay Christensen The public hearing for this budget opening is scheduled for March 21, 2006. A. The Administration's transmittal contains 44 proposed adjustments including 10 relating to grants. B. Twelve of the adjustments propose the use of fund balance for a total decrease in fund balance of$6,525,955. 1. Fund balance as of June 30, 2005 (less encumbrances and current-year appropriations) is $25,628,000, which is 15% of general fund revenue. (See attached schedule provided by the Administration.) 2. If all of the proposed uses of fund balance are approved, fund balance will be $19,102,307 or 11.12% of general fund revenue. Although this amount is in excess of the Council's 10% minimum policy, for the last several years, the City's fund balance has been between 14% and 17%. 3. Fund balance could be further impacted once the Council considers full funding of the Grant Tower project and the funding of the TRAX project. This is not reflected in this budget amendment, although a full report of Grant Tower funding options has been provided by the Administration. 4. The City's financial advisor has cautioned the City in the past that a downward trend in fund balance may be a red flag to the rating agencies. 5. In view of a possible large general obligation bond for public safety, the Council may wish to consider whether it is prudent to appropriate over $6 million of fund balance. 6. Two of the budget amendment requests involve appropriations of CIP funds for costs that are not included in the 10-year CIP plan (A-1 and A-6). CIP funding for these projects totals $70,000. Page 1 D. Due to the significant funding issues currently facing the City, the Council may wish to ask the Administration for a comprehensive funding recommendation relating to Grant Tower, TRAX, Justice Court, Fleet Facility and other projects currently being recommended prior to taking action on the most significant aspects of this budget opening. Acting on one or more of the items in this budget opening prior to receiving complete information on TRAX and Fleet Facility funding options may limit the Council's flexibility in addressing those issues. Further, acting on the significant issues in this budget opening prior to considering in detail the potential impact on the Redevelopment Agency resources may also limit the Council's flexibility. E. The Administration's revenue forecast through December 2005 projects that the City's revenues will be $934,000 greater than anticipated. (See attachment.) F. The Administration projects that property tax revenue will be $2,612,000 less than budget by year end; sales tax will be $2,065,000 greater than budget; franchise tax will be $466,000 less than budget; license and permit fees will be $1,075,000 greater than budget; and interest income will be $823,000 greater than budget. G. There is a possibility that the shortfall in property tax revenue could be more than the Administration's estimate due to the fact that property tax revenue is down from previous projections. For example, Delta Airlines and others are apparently delinquent in their property taxes. H. The final property tax settlement statement from the County is expected by the end of March. After receiving the final settlement, the Administration will have a better estimate on revenue and available fund balance. FUND BALANCE Percent of General Fund Revenue Fund Balance 6/30/05 $29,158,147 Less amount reserved for encumbrances (2,526,885) Unreserved fund balance 6/30/05 $26,631,262 15.50% Less appropriations in FY06 original adopted budget (887,300) Less appropriations in budget amendment #1 (115,700) Remaining fund balance $25,628,262 14.91% Less proposed appropriations in budget amendment #4 (6,525,955) Remaining fund balance if all proposed uses of fund balance are appropriated. $19,102,307 11.12% In an effort to make the review of the budget openings more expedient, the Administration has attempted to categorize budget opening items as follows where possible: A. "New" - those items that are new issues. B. "Grant requiring existing staff resources" -- those grants that will require the City's existing staff to complete a specific project. (Employees involved with these projects may have less time to focus on other projects within the scope of their work.) Page 2 C. "Grant requiring additional staff resources" - those grants that provide additional staff positions and require a City match. These generally have policy implications because they may add a new service or create an expectation that the City will fund the position after the grant has expired. D. "Housekeeping" -- those items classified by the Administration as strictly accounting actions that do not have policy implications. E. "Grants requiring No New Staff Resources" - those grants that provide funding for costs that are not associated with positions. F. "Donation" -- those items that are donations that require Council appropriation to be used, are consistent with previous Council discussions, or do not have policy implications. G. "Additions from the Council" - items added by council staff for the Council's consideration. The headings for some of the more significant items, as well as items that add FTE's in this budget opening, are underlined. The items that relate to fund balance are marked in YELLOW in this staff report. MATTERS AT ISSUE A-1: Pavement Condition Inventory ($15,000 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") source: Class C over-run account The fiscal year 2005-06 CIP budget included an appropriation for $100,000 from Class C road funds to update the City's street pavement condition inventory. Traditionally, the City hires a pavement management consultant every five years to assess pavement condition. This data is utilized by the Engineering Division to develop pavement maintenance and rehabilitation strategies. During the selection of a consultant, the Engineering Division determined that an additional $15,000 was needed. The Engineering Division suggests the source of funds be from the Class C over-run account. A-2: Wasatch Front Regional Council Lobbying ($5,000 - General Fund) fund balance ("New Item") The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) hired a lobbyist to advance their interests during the 2006 legislative session. The lobbyist is to keep WFRC informed and alert the WFRC if mayors are needed to lobby and testify. Based on the same formula used to calculate the COG assessment, WFRC has assessed Salt Lake City $5,000. The Administration proposes funding this assessment from fund balance. Please see the Administration's transmittal for the priorities outlined by WFRC. The Council may wish to consider whether it will allocate additional funds when the request is made after funds have been expended, rather than in advance. Rather than allocating fund balance, the Council could decline to act on this item and the result would be that the Administration would absorb this expenditure within their existing budget. The Council may wish to ask whether this is anticipated to be a one-time expense versus an on- going expense during future legislative sessions, and whether this item should be included in the annual budget process. A-3: Jordan River Trail-Rose Park Bridge ($25,000- CIP Fund) ("New Item") The City received a Federal Highway Grant from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) in the amount of $405,000 to use towards the development of the Jordan River Trailway between the Rose Park Bridge and the Davis County line. The City's match for the Page 3 grant is $175,000 which will be requested during the 2006-07 CIP process. The Engineering Division is requesting $25,000 of the match be allocated now from the CIP cost overrun account to move forward with the design study report to allow the project to be constructed in 2007. (This item is included under `trail development' in the 10-year CIP plan.) A-4: Jordan River Trail Security Lighting (two broken lights and Sherwood Park power distribution panels) ($50,000 - CIP Fund) ("New ftem") As a result of recent vandalism, the Administration is requesting $50,000 from the CIP cost overrun account to replace wiring for the Jordan River Trail Security Lighting System light poles and fixtures and power distribution panels at Sherwood Park in order to be prepared for the baseball leagues scheduled to use Sherwood Park in early spring. (This item is included in the 10-year CIP plan.) A-5: Jordan River Trail Security Lighting 1000 North to Golf Course ($62,000 - CIP Fund) ("New ftem") In FY 2005-06, the Council appropriated $62,000 for security lighting on the Jordan River Trail from North Temple to the State Agriculture Building. Engineering is currently working on the trailway portion from 1000 North to the Rose Park Golf Course Bridge, and is requesting to use the 2005-06 funding allocated for the North Temple to the State Agriculture Building project on their current trailway project. Some cost savings may be achieved by installing power and security lighting conduit while the trail is being built. The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the use of previously appropriated CIP funding for the trailway security lighting. A CIP funding request has been submitted for the CIP 2006-07 process for trailway security lighting from North Temple to the State Agriculture Building. (This item is included in the 10-year CIP plan.) A-6: Fremont &Remington Street Improvements ($55,000- CIP Fund) ("New Item") In 2005-06 this project was awarded $372,000 of CDBG funds for street improvements on Fremont and Remington Street. The original proposal did not include funding for underground conduit for future street lighting, and due to significant increases in construction and materials, the current budget is inadequate. Engineering is requesting $55,000 from the CDBG CIP cost overrun account to assist with the project deficit. (This item was funded in fiscal year 2005-06 with CDBG funds.) A-7: 1100 West Jordan River Bridge Replacement($23,000 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") $900,000 of Federal Highway funding was used in 2004 for the completion of the 1100 West Jordan River Bridge replacement project. A final cost adjustment request, including additional consultant construction engineering costs, was submitted to the City from UDOT in the amount of$27,410. There is a remaining balance of available funds for this project of$4,900. This request is to use $23,000 of Class C cost overrun monies to fund the final costs adjustments. The Administration recommends that the Council increase the budget for this project and decrease the Class C cost overrun account to facilitate final payment to UDOT. (This item is included in the 10-year CIP plan.) A-8: Class C Asphalt Overlay on Various City Streets ($1,500,000 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") As in prior years, the Administration is requesting approval to bid and begin work on Class C road projects in advance of receiving Class C road funds in the next fiscal year. This expedited process allows work to begin in the spring of 2006 and be completed during the 2006-07 construction season. The asphalt overlay will be performed on various City Page 4 streets. (The specific street locations are included as an attachment to this staff report.) The work will increase pavement life, provide smoother street surfaces and enhance streetscape appearance. ADA ramps will be constructed and deteriorated curb and gutter will be replaced. This request also includes $100,000 to design the FY 07-08 Overlay Project. This request is consistent with the Council's policy of making appropriations available in advance of receiving the funds so that the City can receive favorable construction bids. A-9: Class C 1300 South Viaduct($300,000- CIP Fund) ("New Item") The City has received preliminary approval for $4.4 million of Federal Bridge Replacement funding for the rehabilitation and seismic upgrade of the 1300 South viaduct. Public Services Engineering is requesting $300,000 of 2006-07 Class C funds now to proceed with the environmental and design study report as mandated by the Federal Highway Administration. This project is included in the 2006-07 CIP applications for Class C funds, as well as in the 10-year CIP plan. A-10: 1300 East Crossing ($285,652 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") source: two existing CIP projects The Federal Highway Bill SAFETEA-LU approved $10.5 million for the Parley's Creek Trail project. The trail includes a bike/recreation trail from the mouth of Parley's Canyon to the Jordan River. Combining the federal grant monies with the local matches from the County (approximately $2,345,000) and the City ($285,652), the construction will be funded for the trail from Parley's Historic Nature Park to Hidden Hollow in Sugarhouse, including the Sugar House "Draw" crossing at 1300 East. The County indicated they will fund a majority of the local match. The first step in the process is to perform an environmental study and design study report. The Engineering Division is proposing the City's match of $285,652 be met by the $200,000 that was allocated for the 1300 East Crossing and $85,652 in the Sugar House Rails to Trails project account. This will allow the City to participate with Salt Lake County in preparation of required environmental and design study documents. The Administration recommends that the Council allow the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. An interlocal agreement will be prepared for Council approval outlining the federal funding and local match responsibilities of the participants. The Council may wish to discuss the policy issue of using monies left over from one CIP project for another project, and whether this sets a precedent to allow other City departments to do the same. Typically funds left in accounts are reallocated through the formal CIP process. A-11: Class C Street Rehabilitation - 900 South from Main St. to 700 East ($900,000 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") Approximately $1,800,000 was previously allocated for reconstruction of 900 South Street from Main Street to 700 East. Due to significant increases in materials and construction costs, $900,000 of additional funding is needed. $700,000 of 2006-07 CIP Class C funds is being requested now to allow the project to begin in the spring of 2006 and complete the project in the 2006-07 construction season. The Administration is requesting that the 900 South Main Street to Jordan River CIP project budget be reduced in the amount of$200,000 for the remaining funding. (According to the transmittal, funds are available for use as a result of minimal change orders and material quantity overruns, as well as good bids.) Page 5 As noted in A-10, the Council may wish to discuss the policy issue of using monies left over from one CIP project for another project, and whether this sets a precedent to allow other City departments to do the same. Typically funds left in accounts are reallocated through the formal CIP process. A-12: Citywide Interoperable Communications ($3,000,000) $1,470,000 from fund balance; $1,170,000 from Airport; $360,000 from Public Utilities ("New Item") In February 2004, the City decided to purchase and construct a new public safety communication system since use of the County system was no longer an option. Phase 1 consisted of the purchase of a smart zone controller and 10 channels. An existing tower on City Creek Peak was utilized. The cost for Phase One was $1.2 million of which about half was funded from a federal grant and the other half from CIP. This system is utilized by both the Police and Fire Departments. In June 2005, four grants were received to upgrade the communication system by adding an additional tower on Farnsworth Peak at a cost of$1.3 million all from grants. The 10 channels were split with 6 channels remaining at City Creek Peak and 4 channels at the Farnsworth site. Phase 2 also added Omnilink, which allowed Salt Lake City to communicate with other Utah state and local public safety agencies via the Utah Communications Agency Network (UCAN). Phase 3 of the project was adopted by the Council during the last budget amendment. In 2005, the City received a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services under the Law Enforcement Technology Grant Program of $493,322 to enhance the City's radio communication system. The improvements included an increase to the number of channels at each of the two towers. Simulcast capabilities were added, which increased the coverage area and provided better quality radio communication. Microwave links were added between the two towers and the Public Safety Building. Phase 4 is the final phase of the project. It adds another tower site and creates seamless interoperability between all City departments, and includes implementing the hardware infrastructure necessary to place the Airport, Public Utilities/Public Services, and Community Development on the existing public safety network. The total cost of Phase 4 is $3,000,000. The Administration is proposing to use $1,470,000 of General Fund fund balance to fund Phase 4. The Administration indicates that during the next five years, the Airport and Public Utilities Enterprise Funds will fund their share of this phase of the project. Based on the number of radios operating on the system, the Airport's share of the cost is $1,170,000 (approximately 39%) and Public Utilities' share is $360,000 (approximately 12%). In the explanation attached to the transmittal, the Administration mentions that although Salt Lake City is the largest city in Utah, Salt Lake is generally not eligible for large Homeland Security Grants. The Administration recommends that the Council appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the final phase of this project. The Council may wish to inquire as to the necessity and advantage of completing Phase 4 now, versus including this request in the Mayor's Recommended Budget for FY 2006-07. This budget amendment appropriates the General Fund portion but it does not appropriate the portion for the Airport or Public Utilities. The Council may wish to note that the Airport does not have their share of the funding for this Page 6 project included in their current budget. Public Utilities staff indicates that they have set aside adequate funding for their share in their budgets for FY 2005-06 and FY 2006-07. A-13: Main Street Flower Project($54,860 - General Fund) source: RDA ("New Item") In response to the RDA's request, Public Services provided flower pots and hanging flower baskets from streetlights on Main Street between South Temple and 400 South in August of 2005. The RDA agreed to pay for flower pots, baskets, seeds, soil and the necessary hardware. This action reflects the expenses incurred by Public Services and the funding received by the RDA. While this is termed a 'new item' it could also be referred to as `housekeeping' since the Council has previously considered this item as the RDA Board. A-14: Airport Property Insurance Increase ($219,939 - Insurance & Risk Management Fund) source:Airport reimbursement("New Item") Property insurance premiums for the City's airports have increased partially due to a reappraisal of airport property, which showed that values have increased. The total premium is $1,207,487, which leaves the City's Insurance 86 Risk Management Fund short by $219,939. The premiums are reimbursed by the Airport. A-15: Grant Tower Railroad Realignment ($4,000,000 - CIP Fund & General Fund) fund balance ("New Item") The Administration's transmittal indicates that this would be a loan from the General Fund until bonding is approved and provided. Funding would be used for property acquisition and construction design to realign the Grant Tower railroad curves. Bonding is only one of a number of options. The Administration's comprehensive transmittal reviews each of the options in detail. The timing of this project is sensitive in nature given that funding is being provided by several different sources. The land acquisition needs to take place first to allow the project to move forward. Prior to committing City resources or moving forward with a bonding approach, the Council may wish to request detailed information on the proposed TRAX station funding. The Administration will provide additional detail and information to the Council during the March 7th Work Session. A-16: Police Department Fleet Fuel Cost Increase ($290,000 - General Fund) fund balance ("New Item") Fuel prices for vehicles have increased significantly over what was originally budgeted. The Police Department is requesting an additional appropriation of$290,000 for fuel based on actual usage for the first six months. Council staff confirmed this need by reviewing actual expenditures as of January 31, 2006. The Police Department expended 80% of its fuel budget in the first seven months of the fiscal year. The budget for fuel is $622,000 and fuel use through January 2006 has been $497,700. Council staff has noted that during FY 2004-05, the Police Department experienced a budget surplus of$305,381 which dropped to fund balance at the end of the fiscal year. The Council could ask the Police Department to identify savings in their current budget for these costs rather than appropriating fund balance. If the department is unable to identify savings, this request could come back to the Council during the last budget amendment of the fiscal year(in June). A-17: Public Services Fleet Fuel Cost Increase ($470,000 - Fleet Fund) $79,000 from fund balance for Public Services; $30,000 from fund balance for Fire Department; $13,000 from Golf Course Fund("New Item") The Fleet Manager is requesting an additional $470,000 for gasoline and fuel to be appropriated from Fleet Management Fund reserves. Council staff confirmed this need by Page 7 reviewing actual expenditures as of January 31, 2006. The Fleet Management Fund expended 76% of its budget for fuel in the first seven months of the fiscal year. The budget for fuel is $1,747,000 and fuel purchases through January 2006 have been $1,327,000. The Public Services Department is requesting an additional $79,000 for fuel to be appropriated from fund balance. The Public Services Department has expended 71% of its fuel budget in the first seven months of the fiscal year. The budget for fuel is $462,600 and fuel use through January 2006 is $329,300. The Fire Department is requesting an additional $30,000 for fuel to be appropriated from fund balance. The Fire Department has expended 69% of its fuel budget in the first seven months of the fiscal year. The budget for fuel is $181,000 and fuel use through January 2006 has been $124,600. The Golf Course Fund is requesting an additional appropriation of $13,000 from the Golf Course accumulated reserves. The Golf Course Fund expended 73% of its fuel budget in the first six months of the fiscal year. The budget for fuel is $51,900 and fuel used through December 2005 was $37,940. As noted in A-16, the Council may wish to ask Public Services and the Fire Department to identify savings in their current budgets for these costs rather than appropriating fund balance. During FY 2004-05, the Fire Department experienced a budget surplus of$124,877 which dropped to fund balance at the end of the fiscal year. Public Services experienced a budget surplus of$539,189 which dropped to fund balance at the end of the fiscal year. If the departments are unable to identify savings, this request could come back to the Council during the last budget amendment of this fiscal year(in June). A-18: Landscape on State Road SR201 ($12,500 - General Fund) source: fund balance ("New Item") The State of Utah is upgrading State Road 201 and would like to upgrade landscaping at Redwood Road and Bangerter exits if the City will agree to pay for water and power meter hookups and maintain the property at City expense. West Valley City has agreed to maintain the landscaping on the south side of the intersections. One-time costs for water and power meter hookups are $8,500. The Department of Public Services estimates the cost of annual maintenance would be $10,300 including labor and materials of$8,300 and water and electricity of $2,000. For fiscal year 2005-06, only three months of ongoing maintenance will be needed at a cost of$4,000. The Administration is requesting that the $8,500 of one-time expenses and the current-year maintenance costs be funded from fund balance. Future year's maintenance will be included in the annual budget to be funded from on-going revenue. A-19: Public Services Natural Gas Increase ($295,836 - fund balance of General Fund; $25,878 - Golf Fund reserves, $9,121 -Fleet Fund reserves) ("New Item") Natural gas prices have increased twice since the budget for fiscal year 2005-06 was developed. Effective June 2005, natural gas prices increased 14.4%. An increase of 20.3% took effect in November 2005. The Public Services Department is requesting an additional $295,836 appropriation from fund balance. Council staff checked the actual expenditures for the first six months of the current fiscal year. The Public Services Department's general fund divisions have expended 64% of their natural gas budget in the first six months of the fiscal year. The budget for natural gas is $596,000 and cost of natural gas used through December 2005 is $381,970. The Council may wish to ask the Public Services Department to identify savings in their current budget for the General Fund portion of this request rather than appropriate fund Page 8 balance. If the department is unable to identify savings, this request could come back to the Council in the next budget amendment. The Administration is requesting an additional appropriation of $25,878 from Golf Course reserves. The Golf Course Fund has expended 65% of its natural gas budget in the first six months of the fiscal year. The budget for natural gas is $35,900 and the cost of natural gas use through December 2005 is $23,310. The Public Services Department is requesting an additional appropriation of $9,121 from Fleet Management reserves. The Fleet Management Fund has expended 70% of its natural gas budget in the first six months of the fiscal year. The budget for natural gas is $30,000 and the cost of natural gas used through December 2005 is $21,038. A-20: Tree Spraying ($112,000 - General Fund) --fund balance ("New Item") During the 2005 calendar year, the City's London Plane trees were severely affected by disease and insects, causing leaf dieback and shedding throughout the spring and summer. The trees were damaged in appearance and in health. To provide the trees protection from further damage, Public Services proposes they be sprayed in a series of three treatments during the upcoming spring season. The Administration recommends that the Council appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate these treatments. A-21: 900 South 900 East Streetscape ($215,000 - CIP Fund) source: $130,000 from Class C Road funds, $85,000 property owner assessments ("New Item") The original bid for this project did not include the alternatives of median island lighting and colored concrete pavement in the 900 South 900 East intersection. Property owners indicated their interest in proceeding with these options. When the 22 property owners were polled regarding an increase to their assessment, 8 responded; 7 were in favor and 1 opposed the increase. Given that a majority of respondents were in favor of the increased assessment, the Administration is requesting that the property owners' assessment budget be increased by $85,000 for the construction of median lighting, and that the Class C budget be increased by $130,000 for the colored concrete in the intersection. According to the transmittal, excess Class C funds are available from the 900 South - Main Street to Jordan River CIP project as a result of bids received, minimal change orders and material quantity overruns. This action would also decrease the 900 South - Main Street to Jordan River CIP project in the amount of$130,000. As noted in item A-10, the Council may wish to discuss the policy issue of using monies left over from one CIP project for another project, and whether this sets a precedent to allow other City departments to do the same. Typically funds left in accounts are reallocated through the formal CIP process. A-22: Police Department Automatic Vehicle Locater System ($350,197 - Asset Forfeiture Fund) ("New Item") The Police Department is proposing that accumulated asset forfeiture money be used to purchase an Automatic Vehicle Locater (AVL) System. An AVL system uses satellite Global Position System (GPS) capabilities on police vehicles to automatically relay the precise location of each police vehicle to console maps of dispatchers. The status of each unit and the current call assignment is also displayed. When emergency calls are received, Page 9 dispatchers are able to tell which officer is closest to help dispatchers in identifying what unit to dispatch, drastically improving call response time. The Police Department intends to install the locators in all first responder vehicles (i.e. patrol, traffic, and gang units). A-23: Additional Legal Support ($10,000 - General Fund) source: $3,300 from fund balance, $6,700 from Public Utilities ("New Item") In June 2005, the City Council authorized an additional part-time attorney (0.75 FTE) primarily for Redevelopment Agency matters. The City Attorney is now requesting that the position be made full time because of the amount of legal work required for the Department of Public Utilities and for franchise matters in the Department of Management Services. The Department of Public Utilities will reimburse the general fund for approximately two- thirds of the cost of the additional one-quarter position. The Council has previously expressed a preference to consider additional staffing requests during the annual budget process where each request can be considered in relation to all funding requests from the various City departments. A-24: E-911 Workstation Upgrade ($150,000 -E-911 Fund) ("New Item") Per state law, telephone users (including cell phone users) are assessed a monthly fee to pay for operation and maintenance of the Emergency 911 call-taking system. The E911 funds collected for billing addresses in Salt Lake City reimburse the City for the cost of answering emergency calls and related equipment. Dispatching expenses are not eligible for reimbursement. The E911 fund balance was about $2,440,000 as of June 30, 2005. The fund balance is accumulated for the replacement of equipment. The Police Department is requesting an appropriation of $150,000 of the accumulated balance in the E911 Fund to replace consoles and work stations. Some rewiring will also be required. The upgrades will take place without interruption of service to the community. A-25: Justice Court Staffing ($130,294 - General Fund) fund balance ("New Item") The Administration is requesting $130,294 from the General Fund (fund balance) to increase Justice Court staffing levels and provide one-time set up costs for additional employees. The request is for 8 clerks and authorization to hire an additional judge now so that recruitment can begin with a summer start date. Additionally, there are one-time start up costs for the extra clerks. The Administration would like the Council's approval to hire one full-time judge now so as to take advantage of the mandatory training in September for new judges. The new judge's salary and benefits will be requested in the Mayor's Recommended Budget. The Administration estimates that it will take three months to hire a judge. Another option is to hire a judge who has already been through the training (one of the part time judges, or another court's judge) allowing the judge to work with new staff immediately and take over calendars if the staff is already trained. FY06 FY07 8 additional clerks $81,800 $327,198 1 additional judge $113,988 one-time set up costs $48,495 $441,186 $130,295 It appears that the Justice Court agrees that a weighted caseload analysis would be helpful; however, the Administration requests that this study be held off until FY 2007-08. Court staff intends to do an in-house analysis using local weighted caseload data. If the study indicates that the court has too many staff, necessary adjustments will be made to Page 10 decrease staff. The auditor suggested that contract staff could be hired while the study is being conducted. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to conduct an analysis to see whether the City would be better off going back to the district court, given this request for additional staff. A-26: Cemetery Historical Survey($5,000 - CIP cost Overrun Account) ("New Item") The Parks Division is eligible for a $2,500 grant from the Utah Humanities Council for a historical survey of the Salt Lake City Cemetery. The grant requires a match of$11,635 of which the Parks Division can partially meet with in-kind services of personnel time and supplies. The Parks Division is requesting an appropriation of $5,000 from CIP accumulated balance. A private donor may provide an additional $2,500. This budget amendment includes a separate item for appropriation of the grant funds. (See E-2.) The Council may wish to consider whether the CIP cost overrun account is the appropriate funding source for this request. Typically CIP funding is invested in tangible assets. A-27: Street Lighting Funding Analysis ($75,000 - General Fund) fund balance ("New Item") The Administration is requesting funding to hire a consultant for a citywide street lighting analysis. According to the transmittal, the City's current lighting infrastructure is not currently being funded sufficiently to maintain and replace the lighting. The study would identify and evaluate funding methods and sources, advantages and disadvantages of each, to fund the capital, operating and maintenance costs and determine which options to offer and the associated funding level and source. (The Council will receive a separate briefing on street lighting issues and recommendations.) A-28: Ground Transportation Administrator ($23,025 - General Fund) fund balance f"New Item") The Administration is requesting monies from the General Fund (fund balance) to hire one full time FTE as the Ground Transportation Administrator. This individual will provide oversight of the transportation industry ordinances, including the new contract form of regulation which was recently adopted by the City Council. The Administration indicates that this position is needed to create a program for enforcement under the new contract, as well as development of the RFP that is now required based on the adopted resolution. The position will be housed under Community Development and report to the Director of Building Services and Licensing. The cost for FY 2005-06 is $23,025, which includes $17,140 for salary and benefits and $5,885 for car, computer and cubicle installation expenses. A full year of salary at mid-point, plus benefits and expenses totals $74,443. The Council may wish to ask what portion of the funding is related to `vehicle expense,' since the City has motor pool vehicles available and the Fleet division does not currently have a cost allocation program to charge departments for their use. Providing funding for vehicle expense for this level of employee will create a precedent and is inconsistent with previous Council actions. B-1: Police Department Victim Advocate Grant ($18,161 - Grants Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") The Salt Lake City Police Department receives this grant annually from the State of Utah, Office of Crime Victims Reparations under the Violence Against Women Grant Program. The Police Department uses the grant to fund one part-time victim advocate position. The in-kind match of$6,651 is met with the program coordinator's salary. The victim advocate responds nightly and on weekends to calls for service on behalf of victims of violent crime. Page 11 Additionally, the position provides resources, referrals, support, education, court advocacy, case history research, and information to prosecutors and court staff. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant; grant funding is paying for the benefits and wages for an existing FTE. B-2: Police Department Crisis Intervention Team Grant ($50,000 - Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") Two City police officers have received specialized training in the recognition of persons who have serious mental illness or developmental disabilities, and are trained to intervene in a way that differs from traditional police procedures. Along with accomplishing other police duties, the two police officers train additional officers in dealing with persons experiencing a mental health crisis, as well as every day interaction of persons with mental illness or developmental disabilities. The Police Department received a $50,000 grant from the State of Utah Department of Health to promote Crisis Intervention Team training throughout the state. The funds will be used to reimburse the director and the coordinator for partial salaries, for travel, training, workshops, manuals, certification pins, and food provided during the training. The grant also pays for additional training for the two police officers coordinating this training effort. This is a new grant that would require the City Council to adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the grant. The Council may wish to inquire as to whether a fee is charged to non-City police officers for the training. B-3: Justice Court Victim Advocate Grant ($39,928 - Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") The Justice Court received a grant from the State of Utah, Office of Crime Victim Reparations under the Violence Against Women Grant Program. This annual grant will be used to continue funding the full-time court clerk position to process domestic violence cases. The clerk tracks, manages and provides follow-up on each case to ensure offender compliance with probation, community service, counseling, drug treatment, etc. The City's match of$20,578 will be met by the Justice Court's budget. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed the resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and any additional grants. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant; grant funding is paying partially for the benefits and wages for an existing FTE. B-4: Local Emergency Planning Committee Grant ($2,500 - Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) were established so that local communities could be aware of hazardous substances being used or manufactured by various entities in or adjacent to the community. Reportable quantities of hazardous materials must be reported regularly to the LEPC. Management Services Emergency Preparedness Office received at grant from the Utah State Department of Public Safety to offset some of the personnel expenses of the Emergency Manager salary for activities with the Local Emergency Planning Committee. The grant requires a 20% match of $625.00 which will be met through the Management Services budget. The Council previously passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and any future grants. B-5: U.S. Department of Education Grant to Leonardo/Global Artways ($99,200 - Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") Page 12 The Leonardo received a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, and is collaborating with the City's Global Artways program to use a portion of the grant for art education and programming at the Leonardo. The grant money is pass-through funds from the U.S. Department of Education. Global Artways will use $22,500 for seasonal teachers for the Summer Arts Apprentice Program and Shakespeare in the Park productions, $37,700 for equipment including a sound studio and production materials, and $38,000 contractual services. The Council previously passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the original grant and any future grants. B-6: Leonardo grant from U.S. Department of Education - HAND Administration ($8,710 - Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") This is the same grant mentioned in Item B-5. The total amount of the grant from the U.S. Department of Education is $297,600. The grant requires monitoring of grant disbursements and certain federal reporting. Since the City monitors other grants, the Leonardo is requesting that the City provide the monitoring and federal reporting for this grant with reimbursement by the Leonardo of $8,710 over the next five years. The City's grant monitoring is handled by Housing & Neighborhood Development Division (HAND). The Council previously passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept this original grant and any future grants. D-1: Youth City-Program Income ($36,430 - Grant Fund) ("Housekeeping") Salt Lake City's YouthCity program (funded in part by a U.S. Department of Education grant) received program income generated from fees. This action will establish a budget for the funds and allow program income to be reallocated back into the grant program for continued programming. D-2: Economic Development Loans - Program Income ($1,279,088 - Grant Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Small Business Revolving Loan Fund has received principal and interest of $217,748 from repayment of loans. In addition, the City uses loan repayments from an old Urban Development Action Grant loan (City Center Project) for its Small Business Revolving Loan Program. Principal and interest repayments of $1,061,340 have accumulated. The Administration is requesting that the Council appropriate both the $217,748 and $1,061,340 to the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund. D-3: Move CDBG CIP projects from the CDBG special revenue fund to the CIP Fund ($731,219 - CIP Fund) ("Housekeeping") The City uses the CDBG special revenue fund to account for monies received from the Community Development Block Grant program for salaries, supplies and other operating costs of eligible nonprofit organizations and for salaries of eligible City employees. Those CDBG monies for construction projects are accounted for in the Capital Projects Fund. In the past, construction projects of nonprofit groups were accounted for in the CDBG operating fund rather than in the Capital Projects Fund. The Administration is requesting that open capital projects for non-profit organizations that are within the CDBG special revenue fund be transferred to the CIP Fund. D-4: Housing Loans - Program Income ($819,487 - Housing Trust Fund) ("Housekeeping") Page 13 Three Housing and Urban Development programs have received program income in the form of principal and interest from repayment of loans. This action establishes a budget for those funds and allows the program income to be reallocated into the individual programs for continued programming. HUD Federal Guidelines require program income to be reallocated to programs that have the same eligible activity. The requested appropriation will allow the program income to be allocated back to the Multi-Family Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program ($249,793), the Single-Family Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program ($487,067), and the First-Time Homebuyer Loan Program ($82,627). E-1: Improving Crime Data Grant ($34,920 - Grant Fund) ("Grants requiring No New Staff Resources") The Police Department received a grant from Georgia State University, Department of Criminal Justice. The funds will enable the City's IMS division to develop a computer software system to interface with the Records Management System software (RMS) in continuing the City's capability to transfer and retrieve crime data to and from the Crime Data Management System (a universal database which shares crime data valley-wide with various law enforcement agencies). E-2: Cemetery Historic Survey Grant ($2,500 - Grant Fund) ("Grants requiring No New Staff Resources") The Parks Division has received a $2,500 grant from the Utah Humanities Council for a historical survey of the Salt Lake City Cemetery. The grant requires a match of$11,635 of which the Parks Division can partially meet with in-kind services of personnel time and supplies. The Parks Division is requesting an appropriation of $5,000 from CIP accumulated balance as part of the match. (See A-26.) A private donor may provide an additional $2,500. As mentioned previously, the Council may wish to consider whether the CIP cost overrun account is the appropriate funding source for this request. Typically CIP funding is invested in tangible assets E-3: Kennedy Center Global Artways Grant ($7,500 - Grant Fund) ("Grants requiring No New Staff Resources") YouthCity Global Artways received a $7,500 grant from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for the Imagination Celebration, which is an on-going art workshop program that includes exhibits and public art-making activities. This grant requires a dollar-for-dollar cash match, which will be met from within Global Artways' general fund budget for personnel expenses. E-4: State of Utah VAWA Grant ($16,875 - Grant Fund) ("Grants requiring No New Staff Resources") The Prosecutor's Office received grant funding from the State of Utah Office of Crime Victim Reparations. The funds will be used (in collaboration with Salt Lake County Probation • Services, the Trauma Awareness Center and the YWCA) to develop and implement a victim empowerment counseling program for women who are reluctant to participate in court proceedings against their abusers. The grant monies will provide counseling services for approximately 150 victims. The grant requires a $7,000 in-kind match which will be met with the grant program coordinator's salary and use of equipment from the Prosecutor's Office budget. The Council previously passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept this and any additional grants. F-1: Ottinger Hall Renovation ($5,000- Donation Fund) ("Donations") Page 14 The Rotary Club of Salt Lake donated the initial $100,000 for this project, and the City's match of $200,000 came from a federal education grant. The anticipated project completion date is the second week in March. During renovation, some unplanned changes were necessary. These funds will allow the replacement of an exterior door, the addition of a small storage closet, and cabinet upgrades. The Administration has a letter of intent stating that the Rotary Club has indicated their interest in donating funds to complete the project. Typically, the Council would not appropriate funds unless a donation is already received, but in this case, the Council is being asked to make an exception due to the timing of construction. F-2: Wayfinding Signs for Emigration Visitors' District (EVD) ($15,518 - Donation Fund) ("Donations") In February of 2006, the Transportation Division received a donation in the amount of $15,518 required as a match to the City's funding for the purpose of installing wayfinding signs for the Emigration Visitors District (EVD). The design and placement of the signs is complete. Given that the costs for fabrication and installation of the signs will be increasing as early as April, the Transportation Division is asking for approval to purchase the signs now to ensure there is adequate funding for the project. Additional Items that the Council May Wish to Consider including in the amendment: G-1 Remove unspecified donations budget (Special Revenue Donation Fund) decrease appropriation by $224,000 A donation fund is used to account for contributions held in trust by the City for contributions received for a specific purpose. For the last few years, the Administration requested and the Council appropriate $400,000 annually for donations with the understanding that the appropriations will be held in a "budget only cost center" until cash is received. As contributions are received and interest earned, appropriations are moved from the "budget only cost center" to the project to match the actual amount of available cash. The Council Chair and Vice Chair have suggested that the Council may wish to be informed of each new donation via budget amendment rather than appropriate an unspecified $400,000 each year. The Council may wish to consider eliminating remaining appropriations in the Donations Fund and not appropriating $400,000 in future years. As of January 31, 2006, appropriations of about $224,000 remain in the "budget only cost center" for future donations. Salt Lake City received the following donations and interest on trust fund cash (excluding the Unity Center, Library plaza pavement replacement, Elizabeth Smart reward fund, Gilgal Garden and other major items separately appropriated by budget amendments): Donations Interest FY2002-03 $207,264 $29,312 FY2003-04 $332,525 $23,427 FY2004-05 $178,685 $27,815 FY2005-06 (first 7 months) $152,795 $23,090 Most of the donations for the current fiscal year (2005-06) are for delivering the Torino message ($70,000), youth programs ($61,000), and from State Farm Insurance for crime prevention and home safety education ($10,000). Page 15 Administrative staff expressed concern that waiting for a budget opening might present issues if a project were waiting for additional monies to continue work. G-2 Portable digital recording system for Neighborhood Outreach Meetings and City Board meetings ($9,900) (IMS Fund) ("New Item") The FTR system used by the Recorder's Office can be installed on a notebook computer that would have similar abilities as the computers in the Council Chamber and the committee room. The cost for the hardware and software would be a one time purchase price of about $8,600. In addition there would be about $1,100 per year in software maintenance charges. This would not be a live system to the internet as currently available, but the public would be able to listen to each meeting after it has been published to the internet. The portable system would also be available for other meetings where a digital recording might be needed such as meetings of City boards, presentations, etc. Further, IMS is purchasing a channel mixer, 6 microphones with stands, and microphone cable for the neighborhood outreach meetings at an estimated cost of $1,300. The equipment could be rented; however, it would be more cost effective to purchase it given the cost to rent and the anticipated number of times it will be used. Another option is to make an audio CD the next morning from the TV recording and the Recorder's Office can transfer the CD into the digital system and add links. This is what we are planning to do for the first neighborhood meeting. This approach would not have the added value of availability for City board meetings. The digital recording system in Room 126 does not have all the capabilities as the systems in the Chamber and the Committee Room. A portable digital recording system could also be used in Room 126, but perhaps a better solution would be to upgrade the system in Room 126 with the "log note template" software at a cost of$500. Options: 1. The Council could appropriate $9,900 now for a portable digital recording system and other equipment with the understanding that the purchase would not occur until after the inexpensive method is tested and evaluated. 2. The Council may wish to appropriate $500 to upgrade the digital recording system in Room 126. 3. Should the Council decide to accept all options mentioned above, the total dollar figure would be $11,500. Page 16 • } UPDATE TO BUDGET AMENDMENT PAPERWORK Item A-12 Citywide Interoperable Communications: Council staff received an email stating that the Airport would need to complete legal review to determine what portion of the Airport's allocation can be paid under Federal law, and that the Airport's portion would be limited to that eligible amount. Legal review can't be completed until a business plan has been completed for the project. (See attached.) Item A-25 Justice Court Staffing: The Administration made the attached analysis of net revenue from the Justice Court compared to revenue that the City would have received from the District Court if the City hadn't established a separate court. The analysis included the request of $130,000 for 8 clerks for three months and shows that the Justice Court will bring in $340,000 more net revenue in fiscal year 2006 than the City would have received from the district court. If a full year cost of the 8 clerks and the additional judge is considered along with the additional revenue that the Administration is forecasting that the Court will collect next year, the net revenue will be approximately $150,000 greater than the revenue that the City would have received from the District Court. In other words, the analysis concludes that the Court will be at breakeven or slightly above breakeven after hiring the additional judge and 8 clerks. Item A-28 Ground Transportation Administrator: The Council received an updated request this afternoon for the Ground Transportation Administrator. The new paperwork removes the request for car expense, adds funding for additional enforcement provided by 3rd parties (off duty police/security), and increases the budget amendment fund balance request by approximately $3,400. (See attached.) ITEM A-12 CITYWIDE INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS From: Pack, Russ Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 12:52 PM To: Jones, Sylvia Cc: Howick,Jodi; Bingham, Jay; Kontgis, Susi; Mumford, Gary Subject: Budget Amendment Sylvia, We read the staff report for Budget Amendment No. 4 dated February 21, 2006, and noted in your description at A-12 for the City-wide interoperable communications that a specific sum has been allocated to the Airport Department for that project. The department stills needs to complete a legal review as to how much we can pay under Federal law, and it should be noted that the Airport's contribution will necessarily be limited to that eligible amount. We cannot complete the legal review until such time as a business plan has been completed for this project. Please let me know if I can provide other detail. Thank you, Russ ITEM A-25 Justice Court and District Court Comparisons Estimated FY 2005-06 Projected Estimated Projected 50/50 Split (based on 50/50 Split Actual from Dist Ct Feb06 data) from Dist Ct FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2005-06 Revenue Criminal non-traffic-- Fines $1,355,293 $677,647 $1,159,425 $579,713 Security Surcharge-City $24,699 $0 $35,387 $0 Late&Warrant Fees, Court Costs $201,607 $0 $275,243 $0 Accident Surcharge $3,031 $0 $4,838 $0 Traffic-- Fines $2,694,231 $2,079,302 Projected 50/50 revenue adjusted $733,050 $565,739 for different dismissal rates(1.5% for Justice Court, 33%for District Court)and 20%of traffic citations from other jurisdictions, and not eligible for District Court revenue. Security surcharge $188,793 $0 $214,533 $0 Late Fees $222,735 $0 $339,744 $0 Accident Surcharge $63,727 $0 $73,359 $0 Traffic Mitigation $310,322 $310,322 $359,483 $359,483 Small Claims $86,108 $0 $81,524 $0 Traffic School $342,065 $553,806 Baseline of fees collected in FY1999 $129,620 $172,395 used for District Court projection, increased by 33%for increased fees approved by City. Total Revenue $5,492,611 $1,850,638 $5,176,641 $1,677,329 Expenses Personnel and Operating* $2,489,324 *Includes Budget Amendment#4 $2,636,314 request of$130,294 Proportionate share of Court expenses $230,006 $161,780 in Parking cost center Debt Service $376,714 $349,495 Proportionate share of parking office expenses(82%for JC, 18%for parking) ($67,809) ($62,909) Building Maintenance and Utilities $65,219 $91,011 Proportionate share of parking office expenses (82%for JC, 18%for parking) ($11,835) ($16,382) Total Expenses $3,081,619 $3,159,309 Net Revenue $2,410,992 $1,850,638 $2,017,332 $1,677,329 Prepared March 7,2006 Laurie Donnell Initiative Name: Ground Transportation Administrator Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-28 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: it Is proposed t ,40b pp p ted an d k hat 26 be rc from r4e fu i the hiring of ,an full time ;position to � �� #,,� kiT 4 rd� + �;T whic will in ude�th i ,10 _ i � i ;i ; , . b , t x '�' .n "'�'" i f ' v yes di "to theh � i�r t t - r� ry E3 iN K a .� 4 } Y F 1`cry n.3 4 -: .. 3 t c,i xr F A ¢ s' 4 ,�,. 3 ! r t r ",' s rK" 1'� n r o � sa i e'i b 7 r.�.w( t k� r (midpoiht) Salary arid, bed for t� 4 ea '`" hey i �nt would be. , 7 s i ii',A 5 is needed for,computer 1ese,e�t p o i� �n nd."" i The,-total cost for; f ull is i year wou b ` ` i,f8 ,� is $1e7a, i t , u d'e t i s-por,atin itx d u ,t isf t c th ro gh the,4 B usi r�s*L1 e O Current he ronray o f �� s , , r�. sin .oCon nrecei sc � � ag � R 4r r4'; � i r . 4 . ,i k 'tii � . teh� vid TisnewFTEis severa � 1 e ... , f _. I;:-ri. u l 48§ aQremnu ? '.beg V a1: { op eo n , r �the: d $ 4 �� � additional . ,thatariad ionai sumo 24,3€ a � s + s a `` z d 'i , .- Po3 X; 111 k ' t d for staff " ethi dlp ties eo � Ae� Sparuestatnpovfqec os'tfc rF f Ir h,t tkf Y �eia d4i d 4r �# " ,, 6 iyi � � � * id » y:4 ' 0 t . � j50 L ' s i z� i f ' .ihettiiTo �r1f84 'a 00 - isr � 1, c � �, . , fii1 ttecil l e it ;224 $3085computer t l ph`tn A�f_ Wiandi e sla n Wh . ` third prty. rifoc mrntarid ,staffoertirr : It is recommended that the City Cc urncil;appropriate the necessary budget to facilitatehftl is project Ground Transportation Administrator Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-28 2005t06 Initiative Number j j Fiscal Year itsIt'( ipeti N. fits « ,r Department j — Initiative Type Ori in 00ff 53546111, Prepared By Phone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp ($26,405)TT Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total [ $0 j $0 Enterprise Fund j Total $0 $0 Other Fund - j - Total 0 t $0,, Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 _ 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0 0 Description 1 • Accounting Detail Grant# and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount _ 06- New Cost Center 2100 $ 17,224.00 06- New Cost Center 2300 $ 9,181.00 $ 26,405.00 Additional Accounting Details: _ - -r- Grant Information: _ Grant funds employee positions? I N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A FY 2006/2007 Capital Improvement Program Engineering Division Asphalt Overlay Streets "G" Street from 1 lth Avenue to 12th Avenue 1700 South from 1500 East to 1700 East 1730 South from 4250 West to 4130 West 1980 South from 4250 West to 560 Feet of 4650 West 2300 North from I-15 Southbound Ramp to Redwood Road(North Half) 4130 West from 1980 South to 2100 South 4250 West from 1730 South to 2100 South 5600 West from 700 North to Amelia Earhart Drive Challenger Road from Harold Gatty Drive to North Cul-de-sac End Jimmy Doolittle Road from Amelia Earhart Drive to Harold Gatty Drive SALT r"` a.‘01IllYr G I 1\P: D le IQl;\ROCKY J. FLU H ART ROSS C. ANDERSON - -axa-:a �� '��� ` ���� �-' MAYOR CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Dave Buhler, Chair Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: February 28, 2006 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No. 4 Recommendation: We recommend that on March 7, 2006, the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on March 14, 2006 to discuss Budget Amendment No. 4. Discussion and Background: The attached amendment packet is transmitted to the City Council Office for the briefing on February 21, 2006. Legislative Action: The attached ordinance to amend this budget has been approved by the City Attorney. cc: Dan Mule, City Treasurer Shannon Ashby 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 23S, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535.6426 FAX: 801-535-6190 ®RECYCLED PAPER SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2005-2006) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 26 OF 2005 WHICH ADOPTED THE FINAL BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, AND ORDINANCE NO. 48 OF 2005 WHICH RATIFIED AND RE-ADOPTED THE FINAL BUDGET THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2005 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2006. PREAMBLE On June 21, 2005, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2005 and ending June 30, 2006, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said budget, including the employment staffing document, was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. On August 23, 2005, the City Council ratified and re-adopted the final budget. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 26 of 2005 and Ordinance No. 48 of 2005. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2005 and ending June 30, 2006, in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. • 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHI F F DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake Ci Attorne 's Office Date �1 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER By J' (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Budeet\Budget Amendment#4 2005-2006.doc 3 MEMORANDUM TO: ROCKY FLUHART, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FROM: STEVE FAWCETT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 5-f'uw DATE: 2/14/2006 RE: DECEMBER REVENUE FORECAST In compliance with Council Resolution#59, of 2003, I'm providing an FY2006 revenue update. This update is in conjunction with Budget Amendment #4. The Finance Division analyzes revenue each month and provides written updates each month beginning with the August analysis. This analysis, through December, shows that property tax revenue is projected to be under budget by year end. This is due to very large judgments awarded. Additionally, other factors are impacting property taxes and we are awaiting details from Salt Lake County that may explain why collections were not as expected. Sales Taxes are expected to generate a substantial increase over budget due to solid growth and increased revenue from Questar Gas, resulting from their rate increases. You may know we anticipated a 14% rate increase in their rates when we set the budget last year. Franchise Taxes are projected to be less than budget, primarily due to a refund requested by Qwest. Although this amount has not been paid we are projecting year end revenue as if it were. License and Permit Fees continue to rise substantially, and none of this increase is the result of permits taken out for the downtown mall projects. Interest Income is recovering as rates rise, and we expect them to continue to rise each quarter over the next year. Fines and Forfeitures, although improving, continue to be projected less than budget at year end. Parking meter revenue is not keeping pace with projections. At this time of year we also monitor the activity of the State Legislature. There are several bills that could negatively impact Sales Taxes substantially. We will continue to monitor revenue collections closely and provide monthly analysis. FY 05/06 FY 05/06 FY 05/06 Variance Annual Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Total General Fund 171,868,358 172,851,692 934,125 Total Property Taxes 62,986,649 60,374,903 (2,611,746) Discussion: Property Taxes are down due to 1.)a judgement of 1.5 million awarded primarily to Qwest and Southwest Airlines. The balance is in the difference between our normal collections from the County and this year collections. We have inquired but have not yet received any data to fully analyze what may cause the difference. It is possible,from past experience, that some is simply an over withholding by the County pending any last minute adjustments in dispersements to RDA,etc. Total Sales and Use Tax 42,575,979 44,640,708 2,064,729 Discussion: Sales tax is approximately 10% higher than the last three years average resulting in a slight increase in revenue with the major categories of change being durable goods, auto sales, and a small portion coming from retail sales. Addtionally, revenue is up as • anticipated because of rate increases in Questar Gas service. This increase is offset by increases in the expenses the City will pay for natural gas service this year. Total Franchise Tax 22,956,972 22,490,504 (466,468) Discussion: Utah Power has had an increase in rate which has resulted in an increase in frachise fees for the city. Qwest has asked for an amout that they believe is owed to them. This amount, although not paid, has been computed as a reduction in revenue and contributes to the projected deficiet. License and Permits: 10,169,815 11,267,998 1,075,183 Discussion: Plan check fees and building permits have a surplus in revenue due to the increase in commercial building. This increase is not the result of the remodel the malls. Interest income 2,235,575 3,058,944 823,369 Discussion: Interest Income has an increase because of rising interest rates. Total Fines & Forfeiture 8,949,300 8,852,505 (96,795) Discussion: Fines and Forfeitures have a deficit due to the number of parking tickets being slightly down. Parking Meters 1,493,000 1,450,490 (42,510) Discussion: Charges and Services 2,967,960 3,040,359 79,481 Discussion: Budgeted Fund Balance running total for the General Fund For FY06 Beginning Fund Balance as of June 30,2005 $29,158.147 Budget book: Total budgeted revenue 171,850,357(17 ,750,357) Total budgeted expenses ($887,300) Total budget book sources/(uses)of fund balance Budget amendment#1 changes: Initiative#D-3 Encumbrance carry forward (2,526,885), 16,885) Initiative#A-1 Impact fee waivers Total budget amendment#1 changes (52,642,585) Budget amendment#2 changes: None Total budget amendment#2 changes $0 Budget amendment#3 changes: None Total budget amendment#3 changes $0 Budget amendment#4 changes: Initiative#A-2 Wasatch Front Regional Council Lobbying (5,000) Initiative#A-12 Citywide Interoperable Communications (1,470,000) Initiative#A-15 Grant Tower Railroad Realignment (4,000.000) Initiative#A-16 Police Dept Fleet Fuel Cost Increase (290.000) Initiative#A-17 Public Service Dept Fleet Fuel Cost Increase (109,000) Initiative#A-18 Landscape on State Road SR201 (12,500) Initiative#A-19 Public Service Dept Natural Gas Increase (295,836) Initiative#A-20 Public Service Dept Tree Spraying (112,000) • Initiative#A-23 Attorney's Office Additional Legal Support (3,300) • Initiative#A-25 Justice Court Staffing (130,294) Initiative#A-27 Street Lighting Funding Anaylsis (75,000) Initiative#A-28 Ground Transportation Administrator (23.025) Total budget amendment#4 changes ($6,525,955) Budget amendment#5 changes:- , • Total budget amendment#5 changes $0 Budget amendment#6 changes:. • Total budget amendment#6 changes $0 Budget amendment#7 changes: Total budget amendment#7 changes $0 Miscellaneous administrative changes to fund balance: Budgeted Fund Balance running total for the General Fund For FY06 Total miscellaneous administrative changes to fund balance $0 Estimated Fund Balance as of June 30,2006 $19,102,307 Percentage to Budget Revenues (171,850,357) 11 12% FY2006Initiatives in Budget Amendment #4 — March FY 2006 FY 2006 Gen. Fund Initiative Gen. Fund ATE Amount Impac Fund Initiative Name t Balance Impact Section A New Items 1. CIP - Pavement $15,000.00 Condition Inventory 2. Wasatch Front Regional $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Council Lobbying 3. CIP—Jordan River Tail $25,000.00 Rose Park Bridge 4. CIP—Jordan River Trail $50,000.00 Security Lighting Sherwood Park 5. CIP—Jordan River Trail $62,000.00 Security Lighting 1000 North to Golf Course 6. CIP Fremont $55,000.00 &Remington Street Improvement 7. CIP— 1100 W Jordan $23,000.00 River Bridge Replacement 8. CIP—Class C Asphalt $1,500,000.00 Overlay 9. CIP—Class C 1300 S $300,000.00 Viaduct 10. CIP— 1300 East Crossing $285,652.15 11. CIP—Class C 900 S $900,000.00 Rehab Main to 700 E 12. Citywide Interoperable $3,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $1,470,000.00 Communications 13. Main Street Flower $54,860.00 $54,860.00 Project 14. Airport Property $219,939.00 Insurance Increase 15. CIP and General Fund $4,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 Grant Tower Railroad Realignment 16. Police Dept Fleet Fuel $290,000.00 $290,000.00 $290,000.00 Cost Increase 17. Public Service Fleet Fuel $470,000.00 $109,000.00 $109,000.00 Cost Increase 18. Landscape on State Road $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 SR201 FY 2006 Initiatives in Budget Amendment #4 —March FY 2006 FY 2006 Gen. Fund Initiative Name Initiative Gen. Fund FTE Fund Amount Impact Balance Impact 19. Public Services Natural $330,835.00 $295,836.00 S295,836.00 Gas Increase 20. Tree Spraying S112,000.00 $112,000.00 $112,000.00 21. CIP - 900 S 900E $215,000.00 Streetscape 22. Police Dept. Automatic $350,197.00 Vehicle Locater System 23. Additional Legal Support $10,000.00 $3,300.00 .25 $3,300.00 24. E-911 Furniture Upgrade $150,000.00 25. Justice Court Staffing $130,294.00 $130,294.00 9.0 $130,294.00 26. CIP—Cemetery $5,000.00 Historical Survey 27. Street Lighting Funding $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 Analysis 28. Ground Transportation $23,025.00 $23,025.00 1.0 $23,025.00 Administrator Section B Grants For Existing Staff Resources 1. Police Dept Victim $18,161.21 Advocate Grant 2. Police Dept Crisis $50,000.00 Intervention Team Grant 3. Justice Court Victim $39,927.84 Advocate Grant 4. Local Emerg. Planning $2,500.00 Committee Grant 5. Leonardo Dept of Ed $99,200.00 Grant to GIobal Artways 6. Leonardo Dept of Ed $8,710.00 Grant to HAND Admin Section C Grants For New Staff Resources Section D Housekeeping 1. Youth City Program $36,430.20 Income 2. Economic Development $1,279,088.00 Loan Program Income 3. Move CDBG CIP from 71 $731,219.41 Fund to 83 Fund 4. Housing Loans Program $1,306,554.00 Income 2 FY 2006 Initiatives in Budget Amendment #4 —March FY 2006 FY 2006 Gen. Fund Initiative Gen. Fund FTE Fund Initiative Name Amount Impacf Balance Impact Section E Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1. Improving Crime Data $34,920.00 Grant 2. Cemetery Historic Survey $2,500.00 Grant 3. Kennedy Center Global $7,500.00 Artways Grant 4. Victim Empowerment $16,875.00 Program Grant Section F Donations 1. Ottinger Hall Renovation $5,000.00 2. Wayfinding Signs for $15,518.00 Emigration Visitors District 3 Initiative Name: Pavement Condition Inventory - Job No. 104018 Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-1 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Funding in the amount of $100,000 was awarded in the FY 2005/2006 CIP Process to perform a detailed pavement condition inventory of the 575 miles of street pavement in Salt Lake City. This survey is performed every five years and forms a basis for determining street resurfacing strategies and CIP needs. During selection of the survey consultant, it was determined that an additional $15,000 would be needed to provide upgrades to the pavement survey method and to include digital pavement crack analysis, an enhanced method of rating pavement conditions. There is a current budget in the amount of $100,000 for this project. This request is to increase the budget and cash in cost center 83-06040 in the amount of $15,000. and to reduce the cash and budget in the Class "C" cost over-run account by the same amount. It is recommended that the City Council increase the cash and budget of cost center 83- 06040 in the amount of$15,000 and reduce the 04 Class "C" cost over-run account by the same amount to facilitate this project. i 1 Pavement Condition Inventory -Job No. 104018 1 j Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-1 _ 2005-06 Initiative Number L Fiscal Year Community Development New Item Department r Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By I - — Telephone Contact L -- General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year I' FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund - $o 1 Total $O 1 Internal Service Fund 1 L Total $0 $0, Enterprise Fund Total) $0 $0 Other Fund Total $0 — Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's j ; 0 Total 0.00 0 Description : r 1 1 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA _ _ Revenue: Cost Center Number I I Object Code Number Amount _ a Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-04097 2700 $ (15,000.00) 83-06040 2700 $ 15,000.00 -j---- Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A _ If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) Lobbying Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-2 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: WFRC has hired a lobbyist for the legislative session to advance the interests of the WFRC. They have "assessed" the member cities for a share of the lobbyist's fee, according to a formula based on assessed property value. They used this formula because it is the same way they calculate COG dues. According to this formula, Salt Lake City's portion of the lobbying fee is $5,000. Here are the current WFRC priorities for lobbying the 2006 legislature: Oppose any legislation that would bring local transit funding under the legislature or a state government agency; Support Transportation Investment Fund funding (new highway capacity fund authorized in the last session); Support extra funds for the Centennial Highway Fund project on I_15 in Weber County to allow the project to reach 2700 North per the original scope; Support legislation to allow private investment in highway (and transit?) facilities based on tolls; Support corridor preservation funding (authorized last session but may need tweaks to get counties to pass). The purpose for hiring a lobbyist is to keep an ear out and let WFRC know if they need to schedule the Mayors to testify and lobby when necessary. 1 j 1 I Wasatch Front Regional Council Lobbying Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-2 2004-05 j1 Initiative Number , � Fiscal Year Mayor's Office New Item 1 Department Type of Initiative DJ Baxter _ _ 535-7735 Prepared By Telephone Contact - ;General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp ($5,000)1 Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 General Fund I Total $0, $0I _ Internal Service Fund I ITota - $0 $0I l Enterprise Fund I II i i_ Total $0 $0!, Other Fund 1 I Total $0 $0 ill ■Staffing Impact: ,New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0, 0 I Total - 0 0 Description II ■ ■ ■ ■ I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number I ! Object Code Number Amount I � - Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 09-00416 2328 5,000.00 - - - Additional Accounting Details: — - - - Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? i— N/A if grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A -- - Will grant program be complete in grant fundingtime frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are jeliminated? N/A 'Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Jordan River Trail - Rose Park Bridge to Davis County Line Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-3 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The City has received a $405,000 Federal Highway Enhancement Grant from UDOT, for use in developing the Jordan River Trailway between Rose Park Bridge and the Davis County Line. The City's matching amount for the grant is $175,000 which is being requested in the 2006/2007 CIP process. Engineering is requesting$25,000 of the match be allocated from the CIP general fund cost overrun account now in order to proceed with the design study report and documents, so the project can be constructed in 2007, and the City can enter into the cooperative agreement with UDOT. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $25,0000 of necessary budget to facilitate this project. Jordan River Trail - Rose Park Bridge to Davis County Line Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-3 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services j New Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins i 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total, $O Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0i $0I Other Fund ' Total 0 $0' Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0, Existing Number of FTE's pj Total 0.00 0 Description i � Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number J Amount xpenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-04099 2700 (25,000.00) 83- New Cost Center 2700 25,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: — i Grant Information:Grant funds employee positions? N/A _ _ Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Jordan River Parkway Trail Security Lighting - Sherwood Park Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-4 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Over the past several months, vandals have stolen wire from the Jordan River Trail Security Lighting System and destroyed power distribution panels at Sherwood Park. Two light poles and fixtures were broken off at the ground along the trailway at approximately 900 So. and 300 West and one pole west of the Kaboom playground in Glendale/Modesto Park. This leaves much of the trailway along this section without lighting and has completely removed the power feed for the Sherwood Park baseball fields, security lighting, restrooms pavilions etc. These sites are highly used by the public and baseball leagues are scheduled to use Sherwood Park in early spring. This request is to create a new project by appropriating $50,000 of budget and cash from the CIP cost over-run account to address the need improvements immediately. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. Jordan River Trail Security Lighting - Sherwood Park J I Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-5 I 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development 1 New Item Department j Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund -- rt Total $0 $01 Internal Internal Service Fund Total $01 $0 Enterprise Fund - -- Total $0 $Oi Other Fund Total $0 $0' Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0�--- Total 0.00 0111-__-- Description 1 , 1 1 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount - -- 1 1- Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number 83-04099 Amount 2700 (50,000.00) 83- New Cost Center 2700 - _ 50,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: L-_ j -- I Grant Information: - Grant funds employee positions? N/A --rt----- ls there a potential for grant to continue? N/A YIf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will - The eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A - _ - ---------._-____.----- Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are - eliminated? N/A !Does grant duplicate servicesprovided by -- - - ---*--- private or Non-profit sector? j N/A Initiative Name: Jordan River Parkway Trail Security Lighting - 1000 North to Rose Park Golf Course Bridge Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-5 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: In FY 2005/2006, the City Council appropriated $62,000 for security lighting to the Jordan River Parkway Trail from No. Temple to the State Agriculture Building. Engineering is currently working on the part of the trailway from 1000 North to the Rose Park Golf Course Bridge. The trail along this section between the fencing/property lines and the river is very narrow. The conduits for power and security lighting should be placed at the same time the trail is being built. Engineering is requesting to use the security lighting funds allocated in FY 2005/2006 for the No. Temple to the State Agriculture Building project, on the trailway between 1000 North and the Rose Park Golf Course Bridge in an effort to save time and funds by installing the conduit now. A CIP request has been submitted for the FY 2006/2007 process for security lighting for the section of trail from North Temple to the State Agriculture Building. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. 1 1 : 1 , Jordan River Trail Security Lighting - 1000 North to Rose Park Golf Course _ Bridge Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-5 2005-06 __ ---I Initiative Number l Fiscal Year Community Development New Item .i _ Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By l Telephone Contact 1_ 'General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund ----- t_ Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund , Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total 0 SO! Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 01 Existing Number of FTE's 01 Total 0.00 0 Description ---r--- , --- -- — - Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number ! Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-06025 2700 $ (62,000.00) 83- New Cost Center 2700 $ 62,000.00 r-- - l.- Additional Accounting Details: --- - Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Fremont Ave./Remington Way Street Improvements - Project No. 102122 Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-6 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: This project was awarded $372,000 of CDBG funds for the street improvements to Fremont and Remington. The original proposal did not include funds to provide underground conduit for future street lighting and due to significant cost increases in construction and materials the current budget is not adequate to facilitate the project. Engineering is proposing that the current budget be increased by $55,000 from the CDBG cost over- run account to facilitate the cost increases and the underground conduit. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $55,000 of CDBG cost over-run funds to facilitate this project. Fremont Ave./Remington Way- Project No. 102122 t- 1 Initiative Name _ BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-6 2005-06 _ Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared ByH Telephone Contact ,, 7 General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund II i Total $0 $0, Internal Service Fund I1 Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 83-CDBG - - — Total 0 $0 Staffing Impact: — New Number of FTE's 0 0— 0 — Existing Number of FTE's 0 _ Total 0.00 0''1 Description i li Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number - ; -�- Amount ------- ---- Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number _ Amount 83-05098 2700 55,000.00 183-06053 2700 �' 55,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: — ----------__ ------ ------- —f Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue'? N/A — -- If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A {Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _jeliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: 1100 West Jordan River Bridge Replacement Job No. 107006 Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-7 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The 1100 West Jordan River Bridge replacement was awarded $900,000 of Federal Highway funding and construction was completed in 2004. Final cost adjustments, which include additional consultant construction engineering costs, have been submitted to the City by UDOT for final payment to UDOT of $27,410.13. Currently there is a balance of $4,904.92 for this project. This request is to increase the budget and cash in cost center 83-01044 in the amount of $23,000. and to reduce the cash and budget in the Class "C" cost over-run account by the same amount. It is recommended that the City Council increase the cash and budget of cost center 83- 01044 in the amount $23,000 and reduce the 04 Class "C" cost over-run account by the same amount to facilitate final payment to UDOT. ------------ 1100 West Jordan River Bridge Replacement Initiative Name — — __-- --- .--- BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-7 Initiative Number ', 2005-06 Community Development Fiscal Year Department I New Item LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins t_J Type of Initiative Prepared By —L 535-6136/535-6150 - Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $01 Internal Service Fund I $Oi _ Total iEnterprise Fund $0 rt • Total $0 Other Fund ------------ 1 Total Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's Existing Number of FTE's Total 0: 0.00 0 Description 1 J Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount _ _ 83-04097 2700 (23,000.00) 83-01044 2700 23,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: — '---- Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A _If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Asphalt Overlay - Class "C" Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-8 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: This project is included in FY 2006/2007 CIP request for funding within the Class "C" Fund. As in prior years, expedited budget approval of this project is being proposed to allow the work to begin in the spring of 2006 and be completed during the 2006/2007 construction season. This project will increase pavement life, provide smoother street surfaces for improved ride ability and will enhance streetscape ap pearance.ppearance. In addition, ADA barriers will be removed and sidewalk access ramps constructed and deteriorated curb and gutter replaced. This request also includes approximately $100,000 to design the fiscal year 2007/2008 overlay project. This request is to appropriate $1,500,000 of 2006/2007 Class "C" fund. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $1,500,000 of FY06/07 Class "C" fund to facilitate this project. Asphalt Overlay -Class "C" Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-8 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared Byj Telephone Contact P General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year - FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0 $01 Internal Service Fund _-- Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund • Total $0 $01 _ Other Fund 83-Class "C" Fund $ 1,500,000.00 Total $ 1,500,000.00 $0, Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0, Total 0.00 0i Description I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number 83- New Cost Center J 1381 Amount $ 1,500,000.00 -- ----- Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83- New Cost Center 2700 $ 1,500,000.00 1 Additional Accounting Details: I -- - I Grant Information: (Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA ,If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or _ Non-profit sector? NA Initiative Name: 1300 So. Viaduct - Job No. 107010 Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-9 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Engineering has received preliminary approval for Federal Bridge Replacement funding in the amount of $4.4 million for the rehab and seismic upgrade of the 1300 So. Viaduct. This request is to appropriate $300,000 of 2006/2007 Class "C" Funds now, in order to proceed with the environmental and design study report which is mandated by the Federal Highway Administration. This project is included in the 2006/2007 CIP request for funding within the Class "C" Fund. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $300,000 of FY06/07 Class"C" fund to facilitate this project. - I - - 1300 So. Viaduct-Job 107010 Initiative Name - -. BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-9 j Initiative Number 2005-06 Community Development Fiscal Year Department New Item i LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins Type of Initiative Prepared By ! — -- 535-6136/535-6150 Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year !General Fund FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 $0 $OI Internal Service Fund Total) 11 Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 Other Fund l $Oi lir 83-CIP Class "C" Fund Total $ 300,000.00 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 Existing Number of FTE's — 0! Total 0'. Description 0.00 Oj ----- ---__--- — _i I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA _ Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83- New Cost Center 1381 ; $ 300,000.00 i -- I - Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83- New Cost Center 2700 $ 300,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: = Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A I - Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A I11Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: 1300 East Crossing/Sugarhouse Rails to Trails Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-10 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The recent Federal Highway Bill (SAFETEA-LU) approved $10.5 million for the Parley's Creek Trail project. This trail, which was recently master planned by Salt Lake County in coordination with the City and the Parley's Rails, Trails and Tunnels Coalition (PRATT), defines a bicycle/recreation trail running from the mouth of Parley's Canyon to the Jordan River. It is estimated that the federal grant combined with a local match contribution of approximately $2,345,000 from the County and the $285,652 of City match will fund construction of the trail from Parley's Historic Nature Park to Hidden Hollow in Sugarhouse, including the Sugarhouse "Draw" crossing at 1300 East. The County has indicated they plan to fund the major portion of the local match requirement. The first step in the Federal Highway/UDOT project delivery process is to proceed with the environmental study and design study report. The City currently has approximately $285,652 of CIP funds for these projects. $200,000 was allocated for the 1300 East Crossing and there is a balance of $85,652 left in the Sugarhouse Rails to Trails project. Engineering is proposing that these funds be combined and the project scope be expanded to allow for the City to participate with Salt Lake County in preparation of the Federal Highway/UDOT required environmental and design study documents. An interlocal agreement between the City, County and UDOT will be prepared for Council approval which outlines the federal funding and local match responsibilities of the participants. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. 1300 East Crossing/Sugarhouse Rails to Trails Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-10 j 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development ! New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact ---- Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund r_ Total $01 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total 0 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's Total 0.00 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center NumberI Object Code Number Amount i I --------------- Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-04022 2700 $ 200,000.00 j 83-05033 2700 — (8 83- New Cost Center 2700 $ 285,652.15 Additional Accounting Details: — — Create New Cost Center I � Grant Information: —Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A — Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I — __!Non-profit sector? I N/A --- Initiative Name: 900 South Rehab - Main Street to 700 East Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-11 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: This project will provide major rehabilitation of 900 South from Main Street to 700 East. Approximately $1,800,000 has been previously allocated for this project. Due to significant increases recently experienced in materials and construction costs, $900,000 of additional CIP funds are needed to complete this project. This request is to appropriate $700,000 of 2006/2007 CIP Class "C" funds now, in order to begin the project in the spring of 2006 and complete the project during the 2006/2007 construction season. This project is included in the 2006/2007 CIP request for funding within the Class "C Fund. Also included in this proposal, is reducing the budget by $200,000 in the 900 So. Main Street to Jordan River CIP project which is substantially complete. Excess funds are available due to good bids received and minimal change orders and material quantity overruns. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustments to facilitate this project. 900 South Rehab -Main Street to 700 — East j Initiative Name j --i BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-11 Initiative Number 2005-06 Community Development Fiscal Year Department _-___. New Item LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins Type of Initiative -r Prepared By 535-6136/535-6150 _ C L Telephoneephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact 1_ _ t Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year General Fund FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 -- Total; Internal Service Fund $01 $0' -- ----------- Total, $01 Enterprise Fund $0 - I Total 1 Other Fund $0 $0' 83 CIP Class C Funds $ 700,000.00 1 --- -I------- --- Total $ 700,000.00 � -- ------ - ----$OI -- Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 - Existing Number of FTE's 0'' Total 0' Description 0.00j 0! - --- ------- Accounting Detail Grant# and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83 CIP New Cost Center 1381 ' $ 700,000.00 L Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-04035 2700 $ (200,000.00) 83- New Cost Center 2700 $ 900,000.00 r I 1-- Additional Accounting Details: —t --- Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? 1 Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A L _ Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or - Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: City-wide Interoperable Communications Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-12 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The administration is proposing to use some of last year's surplus revenue to fund phase IV , the final phase, of the interoperable communication system. This last phase will totally intergrate all the City's communication systems into one -totally integrated- City-wide telecommunication network. Phase IV will implement the hardware infrastructure necessary to place the Airport and Public Utilities/Public Services and Community Development on the existing public safety network. The complete narrative is attached in the Council transmittal documentation. Initially, the administration is asking the Council to appropriate the entire $3,000,000 needed to complete the implementation and training to get the entire City up on the existing system; however, the enterprise funds will be required to pay back the General Fund for their pro- rated share of the remaining $3,000,000 needed to complete the system build-out and integration. The enterprise funds will be given the next five years to implement a repayment plan for reimbursing the General Fund. Based upon the number of radios operating on the system, the Airport's share of the $3,000,000 is $1,170,000 or approximately 39 percent, and Public Utilities will reimburse the General Fund $360,000, or approximately 12 percent. Interoperable Communications ' j Initiative Name I BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-12 2005-06 Initiative Number j Fiscal Year Management Services New Item —1 Department Type of Initiative Susi Kontgis 535-6414 Prepared By i Telephone Contact --_ General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp. ($1,470,000)—1 1 evenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund 1_ Fund Balance — — , — — Total $01 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0, Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total 0 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0�— Existing Number of FTE's 0 01 Total 0 O1 Description I 1 +- • I � Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number j Object Code Number General Fund _ Amount Fund Balance ! $ 1,470,000.00 _ General Fund Acct Rec Airport !General Fund Acct Rec $ 1,160,000.00 Public Utilities i I -�-- � - — — — - -I 30,000.00 _ T3 CIP New Cost Center 1974-01 _ Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number 09-00700 Amount — 2910-01 $ 3,000,000.00 83 - CIP new cost center 2700 — _ 3,000,000.00_1 i — Additional Accounting Details: 1 Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? — ----- N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will _ be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? A _4- Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? rt N/A -1- Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? I I N/A TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: Feb. 14, 2006 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Susi Kontgis SUBJECT: City-wide Interoperable Communication System STAFF CONTACT: Susi Kontgis 535-6414 or Krista Dunn 799-3265 DOCUMENT TYPE:Memo BUDGET IMPACT:$3,000,000 for System installation/integration of which Airport will reimburse the General Fund$1,170,000 for its share of the infrastructure costs, and Public Utilities will reimburse the General Fund $360,000. DISCUSSION: SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT APPLICATION COPS Interoperable Communications Technology FY 2005 Program EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ultimate goal of Salt Lake City (SLC) Public Safety is to establish a model, Project 25-compliant, multi-disciplinary/multi-jurisdictional 800 MHz communications system that is interoperable across Salt Lake City Departments and statewide. This system enables SLC to have Police, Fire, Public Services/Utilities, Salt Lake International Airport, Airport#2, and Tooele Airport on the same radio system, and talk to each other during emergency events, while maintaining their own frequencies and channels. Likewise, the system links Salt Lake City departments with the existing UCAN (Utah Communications Agency Network) while maintaining independent systems. This also moves us toward creating statewide redundancy. It has been accomplished by establishing an OMNILINK connection between SLC and the UCAN systems. Further benefits are achieved because the connection includes the UWIN (Utah Wireless Integrated Network) project and creates a link with the National Guard, health and medical facilities, and federal and regional public safety agencies across Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. To date, Salt Lake City has been the missing link in achieving statewide interoperability. The reasons for this have been varied, but justified. SLC could not rationalize joining UCAN, where redundancy is accomplished through a second zone controller within the same building as the first. This means that, in the event of a catastrophic disaster where that building is destroyed, communications across Utah would be severely hampered, or would cease. This project enables both systems to operate independently, provide redundancy, and address ongoing coverage issues. Salt Lake City has been actively engaged in addressing interoperable communications challenges for many years. To date, SLC Public Safety has acquired a combination of local and federal funding to implement the first three of a four-phase project. This first phase constructed a one-site, ten channel radio system that serves Public Safety (police and fire) only. This enables SLC to provide basic communications services. The second phase constructed a second tower site and split the ten channels between the two sites. It also enabled us to implement OmniLink, which enables us to achieve interoperability with UCAN and UWIN. The third phase implemented"Simulcast", increasing the coverage area by searching out all repeaters instead of just the closest one. Each site was then increased to ten channels. The purpose of this proposal is to implement Phase 4. In this phase, SLC enhances the system to a three-site, 21 channel, Simulcast system, with interoperability between all SLC Departments, as well as UCAN and UWIN. In this phase, the third control site (Prime Site) will be constructed at the airport or another location. The system will have 20 channels on each site. While interoperability was established with other Public Safety agencies during the first three phases of the project, this phase will create seamless interoperability (without manual patches) between all Salt Lake City Departments. Historically, in catastrophic events from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina, manual patches have consistently failed, rendering communications impossible. While each of the City's departments has efficient, stand-alone systems, seamless interoperability can only be accomplished through this type of project. Further, it will provide space for more Utah agencies to participate (with potential financial revenue) should the Administration and City Council desire to move in that direction. INTRODUCTION: Interoperable communications is essential in this area of the state. Representatives of Salt Lake City departments have long recognized this need, and have spent considerable time negotiating ways to accomplish it. Regular meetings have been attended by representatives of each SLC department involved in the project. A four-phase plan was established to accomplish the goal, and phases one through three have now been funded and are in the final stages of construction and testing. When Salt Lake County opted to join UCAN three years ago, that left SLC without a Zone Controller or the ability to operate its basic radio communications. Phase 1 addressed this issue. While Salt Lake County found it in their best interest to join UCAN, Salt Lake City still could not justify joint operations. One of SLC's major concerns was the ongoing costs of operation under UCAN, and believed that operating its own system would be more cost effective. Further, as long as UCAN operated both it's controllers within the same site,true redundancy could not be achieved. In the event of a major catastrophic event in which the building was destroyed, communications across the state would be severely hampered, or would possibly cease. By remaining independent, the two separate entities could become the redundancy for one another if the need arose. Additionally, first responding agencies in Utah will be interoperable if this proposal comes to fruition. This includes all city, county, state and federal agencies with operations in Utah, as well as private industry that are response or critical infrastructure in nature. This includes medical, chemical, utility, treatment plants, transportation, etc. A. Problem Identification and Justification & Use of Federal Funds: On August 11, 1999 Salt Lake City experienced a rare and destructive disaster. In the middle of the workday, a tornado tore through the downtown area, wreaking havoc on buildings, cars, trees, and people. One person was killed,hundreds injured, and the destruction was devastating. Public Safety officials converged on the area, but their inability to communicate adequately severely hampered the response effort. Law enforcement and emergency personnel arrived from across the Salt Lake Valley, but were unable to determine where they were needed or how they could help. Ultimately a command post was set up in the middle of a street where representatives from each police and fire agency could meet together and then direct their own troops. Likewise, public services and utilities were unable to communicate with public safety. Salt Lake International Airport was also unable to communicate with City service providers. This was caused by separate systems utilizing various stages of technology that were incompatible at the time. The result was confusion, delays, and inefficiency. This proposal addresses seven communications challenges faced by SLC: Citywide Interoperability. SLC Police, Fire, Public Services, Public Utilities, Community and Economic Development and SLC International Airport have operated on different communications systems for many years. The result is that these departments cannot coordinate services in the event of an emergency or even a large-scale event, if manual patches fail, as has consistently been the case across the country . Prior planning prevents many issues in large- scale,planned events, but radio communications are still an important issue. Statewide Interoperability. Salt Lake City has remained separate from the statewide UCAN system over the years due to redundancy issues and administrative and philosophical differences in the needs of each entity. SLC has maintained a desire to operate its own communications system while achieving interoperability with other agencies, and providing redundancy for each other. The need still exists for all State agencies to achieve interoperability. Regional Interoperability. In the event of a catastrophic event, it becomes necessary for Public Safety, Health, Utility, Military, Medical and other agencies to have essential communications capabilities. Salt Lake City, as the States' capital and largest city does not have the capability of achieving Regional Interoperable Communications in its current capacity. Lack of adequate local, state and federal funding. While SLC understands the need for interoperable communications, the cost of accomplishing it has been insurmountable. The technology required to accomplish this objective is extremely costly. Previous Communications Agreement. In the past, SLC and SL County operated a joint communications system, in which the Control site was operated in County facilities. When Salt Lake County opted to join UCAN two years ago, that left SLC without a Zone Controller or the ability to operate its basic radio communications. SLC obtained funding to implement Phaselof the project to establish basic communications, and subsequently has received funding to implement Phases 2 and 3. Public Safety Building Infrastructure. SLC Police and Fire Administration operate from the same building. That structure was built in 1958 by Northwest Pipeline, and purchased by SLC in 1988. All Public Safety Communications equipment sits in this aging structure, and would be rendered useless if the building collapsed. There is a need to move the "Prime Site" location to a more stable structure. Political Climate. As SLC and UCAN have remained firm in their desire to operate their own communications systems, many municipal and State Agencies have seen the City as unwilling to cooperate with other Public Safety entities. In order to validate legitimate concerns, there is a need to create interoperability, while allowing individual entities to retain control of their own systems. Funding Request Justification: In order to justify this request, it is necessary to give some history of Salt Lake City's pursuit of interoperable communications. SLC has studied this need since the mid- 1980's. In 1997 SLC began negotiations with agencies statewide regarding the implementation of a"Statewide Radio Communications System" or UCAN. SLC and SL County opted out. These two entities joined together to create their own radio communications system. In 2003, SL County joined UCAN, and broke away from SLC. Since the joint communications system operated from the same zone controller, SLC was without a communications system. In 2002, SLC received a Technology grant from COPS Office for $640,000, along with a one-time appropriation from the Salt Lake City Council of approximately $600,000 to implement Phase 1 of the SLC Communications System plan. This provides basic Public Safety Communications, along with manual links to other agencies. In 2004, SLC received funding from Homeland Security to construct an additional site, and split the existing 10 channels between those sites. In addition, Omni Link was implemented to create interoperability with UCAN and UWIN. The third phase, funded with a 2005 COPS Technology Grant, increased each of the existing sites to ten channels, and implemented"Simulcast". Through simulcast,the system coverage area is increased and enhanced by searching out all repeaters instead of just the closest one. In the fourth phase, the communications system will be upgraded to 3-site, 21 channel, and will relocate the Prime Control Site to a more stable location. In this phase, the new site will be constructed, and each of the three sites will be enhanced to 10 or more channels. This phase creates complete interoperability across all SLC departments and with all UCAN and UWIN agencies. It is understood that most of the country has experienced economic difficulties during the past several years. SLC is no different. The budget has been continually lean and every department has been asked to do more with less. We believe that this project provides an opportunity for SLC to complete the Radio Communications Plan while developing a model multi-disciplinary and multi jurisdictional communications system. Finally, due to the size of Salt Lake City, we have found ourselves in a precarious position. While we are the major commercial/business/government center and largest city in the state of Utah, we are still relatively small in comparison to other cities across the country. Further, our location does not generally make us a prime target for terrorist attacks. While we feel fortunate in this position, we don't seem to make the list of cities eligible for large Homeland Security Grants. This would make little difference except for the fact that all other Department of Justice funding has been cut dramatically. This places cities like SLC at a disadvantage as we continue to address arising critical issues. Multi-disciplinary and Multi-jurisdictional Approach: As we look to our ability to provide basic services to our citizens on a daily basis, from minor infractions or requests, to emergency response, natural disasters, and terrorist threats or attacks, interoperability is a crucial obligation that must be accomplished to serve those citizens. The proposed SLC project brings interoperability to all players. For example, if a high magnitude earthquake were to hit Salt Lake City, first responders, military, medical and critical infrastructure experts from across the state and region would be able to communicate, send aide, and assist in providing critical operations to respond successfully, without creating major communications disparities. Further, an emergency operations center could be set up at one of the communications headquarters where dispatchers could actually see, on their consoles, all available responders (from all participating agencies). This will enable administrative personnel to assign,with reasonable accuracy and surety, all participating responders to the most critical areas. Previously, as outlined in the last federal grant request, each City department was responsible for its portion of the 25%match, as well as ongoing maintenance costs (although those costs have not yet been assessed and are not yet determined). Currently each departments' portion of the system has been determined by the number of radios each operates on the system; however, this utilization allocation may be modified as the departments actually begin operating on the system and the airport reviews the legal funding restrictions which may be imposed under federal guidelines. SLC Departmental Break-out of Costs: *Airport @ 39% (980 radios)= $1,170,000** Public Safety @ 37% (930 radios) = $1,110,000 Public Serv. @ 12% (293 radios) = $ 360,000 *Public Utilities @ 12% (295 radios) $ 360,000 SLC Proposed Project Cost= $3,000,000 *Enterprise Funds $1,530,000 ** Airport allocation may be subject to revision if mandated by federal law. TOTAL PROJECT (4 PHASES) $6,373,322 PREVIOUSLY FUNDED $3,373,322 TOTAL CURRENT PROJECT $3,000,000 RECOMMENDATION: Implement Phase IV of the City-wide Interoperable Communication System. Initiative Name: Main Street Flower Project Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-13 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The RDA requested that Public Services provide flower pots and hang flower baskets from street lights on Main Street between South Temple Street and 400 South. The RDA agreed to pay for flower pots, baskets, seeds, soil, and hardware associated with this initiative. An interlocal agreement was entered into between the RDA and Public Services. This budget amendment provides budget for the revenue the RDA will pay Public Services. This budget amendment also provides budget for the expense Public Services incurred to provide the requested services for the RDA. Main Street Flower Project Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-13 Initiative Number 2005-06 Public Services — ' Fiscal Year New Item Department .- - Greg Davis Type of Initiative Prepared By 535-6397 Telephone Contact _General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund RDA � — $ 54,860.00 Total, $ 54,860.00 I $0 Internal Service Fund ------ -------- i Total $0 $Oj _Enterprise Fund Total $01 Other Fund $Ot Total 0 - ------__ $01 _ Staffing Impact: -- (New Number of FTE's 0 Existing Number of FTE's — 0! Total 0 --- Description 01 -+- -- - 1 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 10412775 1955-20 $ 54,860.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 04-12775 2277 5,085.00$$2730-20 i 04-12775 49,775.00 Additional Accounting Details: ----- -r -- _ Grant Information: --- Grant funds employee positions? N/A - Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A --'�- - If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are - �-- eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or N/A _I _- Non-profit sector? N/A I Initiative Name: Airport Property Insurance increase Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-14 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: In 2004, an appraisal was done on the Airport property and the values went up. This caused an increase in the Airport's insurance premium to a new total fo $1,207,486.78, leaving them with a shorage of $219,939. This amount will be billed to the Airport. Airport administration has been invloved in this new appraisal of the properties. i Airport Property Insurance Increase _ Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-14 2005-06 Initiative Number 1 Fiscal Year Attorney - Risk Mcimt New Item Department Type of Initiative Timothy Rodriguez 535-6020 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund i Total $0 $0j Internal Service Fund 87 Risk Airport Premiums - $ 219,939.00 • Total $ 219,939.00 $0 Enterprise Fund 1 Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total 0 $01 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's ■ 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0, 01 - Total 0 0 _-_— Description ■ —--- I III III III MEN 1111111111 I j Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object 87870-01 1ec t Code Number ; � Amount 1860 $ 219,939.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number 1 Amount 87870-01 2549 219,939.00 Additional Description: r-- I Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A 'Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will f _Ibe eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A 'Does grant duplicate services provided by private or j Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Grant Towers Railroad Realignment Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-15 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Realignment of Grant Tower railroad curves. This would be a loan from the General Fund until bonding is provided. These funds would be used for property acquisition and construction design. The project would eventually be bonded for. The loan from the General Fund would be paid back from those bond processes. It is estimated that the bonding for the total project would be about $11 million. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. Grant Towers Railroad Realignment Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-15 2005-06 j Initiative Number � -- I i � Fiscal Year Mayor's Office _ New Item Department j l Type e of Initiative _ DJ Baxter 535-7735 Prepared By j Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp; ($4,000,000) Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $01 $0 - - Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0, Enterprise Fund Total $0 $01 Other Fund Total i O Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0! Existing Number of FTE's Oi Total 0.00 Description OII--- -1 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: - Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 183 New Cost Center 1974-01 j 4,000,000.00 I _ 1 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 09-00700 2910-01 $ 4,000,000.00 _ 83- New Cost Center 2700 $ 4,000,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: --1 Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A f_ --- Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or j _ Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Fleet Fuel Cost Increase Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-16 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The Police Department continues to experience higher than budgeted fleet fuel costs. Request an additional appropriation of $ 290,000 for FY 06 to provide sufficient funding using 6 months expense projections. During the budget adoption process for both FY 05 and FY 06 the department represented best estimate increases available to provide full year funding. Pricing increased at higher than anticipated rates. Miles drive have remained relatively consistent with miles driven for Year 2003 - 350,474, Year 2004 - 351,707, Year 2005 - 371,793 i Fleet Fuel Costs Increase 1 Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-16 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Police New Item Department Type of Initiative Jerry Burton (Contact Number) Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund Fund ( Fund Balance) Impri ($290,000) Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0 $0 _ Internal Service Fund Total $0 $01 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 0 Total 0 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's none none Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 01 0 Description _ Overtime Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount -- I Expenditure: - Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 02-01000 2390-01 $ 290,000.00 I-- _ Additional Accounting Details: - Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A iWill grant impact the community once the grant funds are _reliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A I I Initiative Name: Fuel for Vehicles Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-17 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: In the current fiscal year fuel prices for vehicles have risen significantly higher than originally budgeted. Unleaded fuel has averaged $1.80 a gallon and Diesel fuel $2.15 a gallon through December 2005. While fuel prices are very volatile and unpredictable, Fleet projects fuel costs will continue to remain at a high level through the end of the fiscal year. This budget amendment will increase the expense and revenue budget for Fleet and increase the expense budget for Public Services, Fire, and Golf. Fuel for Vehicles Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-17 2005-06 Ji Initiative Number Fiscal Year 1 Public Services New item Department j _ I Type of Initiative Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp;1 ($109,000) j 1 Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 !General Fund Total $0 $0, Internal Service Fund Fleet Fund $ 470,000.00 Total $ 470,000.00 $0 Enterprise Fund — 59 Golf Fund Balance $ (13,000.00) Total $ (13,000.00) $0 Other Fund Total 0 $0, Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 — 0 Total 0 0 Description 1 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 61-00008 1953-20 $ 470,000.00 Expenditure: —_i Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 6100008 2231-01 $ 220,000.00 6100008 2231-04 $ 250,000.00 $ 470,000.00 03-10300 2390-01 $ 100.00 03-10610 2390-01 $ 22,000.00 03-10620 2390-01 $ 5,350.00 03-10730 2390-01 $ 350.00 03-11410 2390-01 $ 8,900.00 03-11530 2390-01 $ 6,300.00 03-11900 2390-01 $ 1,750.00 03-12000 2390-01 $ 2,550.00 03-12100 2390-01 $ 3,550.00 03-12220 2390-01 $ 250.00 03-12200 2390-01 $ 150.00 07-00095 2390-01 $ 100.00 03-12400 2390-01 $ 4,500.00 04-10630 2390-01 $ 1,350.00 04-12300 2390-01 $ 16,400.00 1 _ 04-13600 2390-01 $ 200.00 04-81102 2390-01 $ 2,700.00 07-00091 2390-01 $ 750.00 04-11510 2390-01 $ 1,750.00 $ 79,000.00 12-00060 2390-01 $ 30,000.00 1 59-01000 2390-01 $ 1,300.00 59-01015 2390-01 $ 1,100.00 59-01025 2390-01 $ 2,700.00 59-01035 2390-01 $ 1,300.00 59-01045 2390-01 $ 1,550.00 59-01055 2390-01 $ 3,800.00 59-01065 2390-01 $ 1,250.00 $ 13,000.00 Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A i Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? ; 1 N/A j :Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? 1 N/A - Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A f _Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are j eliminated? i N/A I ' - Does grant duplicate services provided by private or I Non-profit sector? N/A 1 Initiative Name: Landscape on State Road SR201 Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-18 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The State of Utah is upgrading State Road 201from the Jordan River to Bangerter Highway. UDOT approached the City with an proposition for upgrading their property at the Redwood Road and Bangerter exits. They would be willing to pay for substantially upgraded landscaping that they designed in exchange for our agreement to pay for the water and power meter hookups and maintain the property at City expense after it was landscaped. The City limits only include the exit on the north of SR-201 and the south side of the road is in West Valley City. West Valley City has entered into an interlocal agreement to participate for their side. Public Services estimates the costs for this interlocal agreement to be as follows: One time water meter hookup for both locations = 8,000 One time power meter hookup for both locations = 500 Total one time costs = 8,500 Ongoing annual (8 months) maintenance costs: Maintenance staffing & materials = 8,000 Snow Removal staffing & materials = 300 Utilities: water & electricity = 2,000 Total annual costs = 10,300 For fiscal year 2005-06, only 3 months of ongoing maintenance will be needed is$4,000 Landscape on State Road SR201 Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-18 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services New Item Department Type of Initiative Greg Davis 535-6397 _ Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp. ($12,500) Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund — Total $0 $01 Internal Service Fund - Total $0 $01 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $01 Other Fund Total 0 $01 —_ Staffing Impact:New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0, Total 0 0 Description BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-18 landscape on SR201.x1s2/22/20061:40 PM Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount I E Expenditure: _ Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 04-13100 District#1 Park Maint 2590 $ 8,500.00 04-13100 District#1 Park Maint 2590 $ 4,000.00 - - $ 12,500.00 ' I Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ;-eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or i HNon-profit sector? N/A BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-18 landscape on SR201.x1s2/22/20061:40 PM Initiative Name: Natural Gas Price Increase Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-19 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: During 2005, Questar Gas who provides natural gas to Salt Lake City Corporation, received approval to increase natural gas rates on two separate occasions from the Public Utilities Commission. The first increase of 14.4% took effect as of June 2005. The second increase of 20.3% took effect in November 2005. The compound effect of these two rate increases is 37.62%. This is an average rate impact across all rates. The impact SLC Public Services is experiencing is 45.6% ($6.63/decatherm in Dec 2004 vs $9.65/decatherm in Dec 2005.) This budget amendment will increase the expense budget for SLC Public Services to cover the impact of the rate increases. Natural Gas Price Increase • I Initiative Name I • BA#$ FY2006 Initiatvie#A-19 2005-06 Initiative Number 1 Fiscal Year Public Services Department New Item _j Department 1 Type of Initiative i Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By I Telephone Contact - General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp.. ($295,836) I Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 - General Fund I _ Total' $01 $0 Internal Service Fund 61 Fleet Fund Balance $ (9,121.00) Total $ (9,121.00) ,' $0 j LEnterprise Fund I 59 Golf Fund Balance $ (25,878.00) Total! $ (25,878.00) 1 $0 1 Other Fund L ' I F — 1 Total 0 $0 I — Staffing Impact: _ New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0' ,Total 0 0' rDescription - 1 BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-19 Natural Gas Increase.xls2/22/20061:40 PM I j j I ' ' Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount I - Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 03-10600 2332-01 $ 17,274.00 03-12190 2332-01 $ 2,905.00 04-10610 2332-01 $ 26,875.00 04-10630 2332-01 $ 11,857.00 04-12245 2332-01 $ 30,052.00 07-00093 07-00091 2332-01 $ 181,121.00-+ 07-00927 2332-01 $ 8,134.00 07-00095 2332-01 $ 3,954.00 $ 295,836.00 59-01000 2332-01 $ 1,505.00 59-01010 -�--- - 2332-01 $ 2,246.00 59-01015 2332-01 $ 295.00 59-01020 2332-01 $ 4,150.00 59-01025 2332-01 $ 295.00 59-01030 2332-01 $ 4,560.00 59-01035 2332-01 $ 143.00 59-01040 2332-01 $ 5,542.00 59-01045 2332-01 $ 581.00 59-01050 2332-01 $ 82.00 59-01060 2332-01 $ 2,845.00 _ 59-01065 2332-01 $ 295.00 59-01070 2332-01 $ 2,968.00 59-01075 2332-01 $ 295.00 59-01095 2332-01 $ 76.00 $ 25,878.00 61-00001 2332-01 $ 9,121.00 Additional Accounting Details: j - BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-19 Natural Gas Increase.xls2/22/20061:40 PM Grant Information: j Grant funds employee positions? j N/A I I Is there a potential for grant to con tinue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? 1 N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A --Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are I - eliminated? a N/A !Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A 1 BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-19 Natural Gas Increase.xls2/22/20061:40 PM Initiative Name: Tree Spraying Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-20 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: This past season (calendar 2005) London plane trees have been host to unusually severe combinations of disease and insects. Anthracnose is a fungus organism that proliferates in cool, wet spring weather. It caused leaf dieback and shedding throughout the spring. During the summer powdery mildew became very severe and produced additional leaf shed and further tree decline. Leaves that remained on the trees, which were uncharacteristically sparse, then became host to plant bugs. The combined effect of these problems not only damaged the appearance of the city's largest and most beautiful planetrees but also impaired their health. Although severity of anthracnose and powdery mildew are related to weather conditions, a repeat in this outbreak in 2006 could result in dieback of large branches and for some trees, already in advanced decline, death. To provide the planetrees some protection from further stress and loss of vitality. Public Services proposes they be sprayed. The intervention is a series of three treatments, all to be applied in the spring, during fiscal year 2006. Projected cost of the treatments is $112,000. (2,500 trees, $44.80 per tree, or $14.93 per application for 3 applications each tree). Tree spraying Initiative Name ' I BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-20 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services j New Item Department Type of Initiative L Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By _ Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp ($112,000) Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0 $0! Internal Service Fund Total $0 $01 Enterprise Fund Total1 $01 1 $0 i Other Fund Total 0 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's none I 01 Existing Number of FTE's 0 or 'Total 0 0' Description -I r- -- _ i BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-20 Tree spraying.xls2/22/20061:41 PM � I i Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number j Amount _ � Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 04-81102 Forestry 2329 $ 112,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-20 Tree spraying.xls2/22/20061:41 PM Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: L Cost Center Number Object Code Number I 1 Amount 1 ' --r t I Expenditure: Amount Cost Center Number Object Code Number 04-81102 Forestry 2329 112000 00---- - - —I I Additional Accounting Details: - - -- -. Grant Information: - N/A Grant funds employee positions? - Is there a potential for grant to continue? NIA -1- - I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will N/A _ be eliminated at the end of the grant? 1-_ - Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NIA I-_-- .4----- Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are N/A eliminated? Does grant duplicate services provided by private or N/A _ Non-profit sector? 7 1 BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-20 Tree spraying.xls2/22/20061:41 PM Initiative Name: 900 South 900 East Streetscape Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-21 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Sufficient funds were available to award the base bid, but did not include the alternates which include the median island lighting and colored concrete pavement in the 900 So. 900 East intersection. A polling of the property owners indicated their desire to complete all phases of the project. All owners were asked to comment on an increase to their assessment. Eight of twenty-two owners responded. Seven were in favor with one opposed to the increase. With the majority of responses approving an increase to the assessment, it is recommended that the City approve the increase of $85,000 to the property owners assessment budget to provide for construction of the median island lighting and increase the Class "C" budget by $130,000 to provide colored concrete in the intersection. Excess Class "C" funds are available in the 900 So., Main Street to Jordan River CIP Project due to good bids received and minimal change orders and material quantity overruns. It is proposed that this project budget be reduced by $130,000 to increase the current budget for the 900 So. 900 East project. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget increases to facilitate this project. 900 South 900 East Streetscape -Job j No. 106018 Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-21 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development 1 New Item Department L Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 I Prepared By Telephone Contact - General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0 $01 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $01 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $01 Other Fund 83-04035 CIP Assessments $ 85,000.00 Total $ 85,000.00 $01 Staffing Impact: _ New Number of FTE's 0 01 Existing Number of FTE's 0' Total 0.00 0'' Description i 1 _ ' � I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-05041 1125 $ 85,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-04035 2700 $ (130,000.00) 83-03036 2700 $ 130,000.00 83-05041 2700 $ 85,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: _ Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A I Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Automatic Vehicle Locater Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-22 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Versaterm AVL/GPS system AUTOMATIC VEHICLE LOCATION SYSTEM The need for efficient, safe and expedient police response to crises has most certainly been heightened in light of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and current world situations. These circumstances have reinforced the need for an integrated logistics information tool capable of coordinating the movement of personnel resources when responding to emergencies. Automatic vehicle location systems (AVL) are computer-based vehicle tracking systems. These systems are used extensively both for military and civilian purposes, including police vehicles and ambulances. Their use and application within law enforcement environments continues to grow, driven forward by numerous expected benefits. Automatic vehicle location systems operate by measuring the actual real-time position of each vehicle and relaying the information to a central location. Actual measurement and relay techniques vary, depending on the needs of the transit system and the available technology systems. Automatic vehicle location allows for enhanced police service to the community by providing the dispatch center with precise locations of available units, minimizing officer en-route time. Officer safety, a critical concern of the Police Association and the Department, is expanded. Officer location is immediately available in the event additional assistance is required or if an officer becomes incapacitated or unable to use their radio. Our agencies computer program provider"Versaterm"provides the AVL with the new MDT version (7.0). Versaterm provides AVL as a visual aid to help dispatchers in locating and/or identifying current unit location (as well as unit status and the current call they are assigned to, if any) - to help dispatchers in identifying what unit to send/dispatch to a call. Deployment Strategy; AVL units would be placed in all first responder vehicles, this would include patrol, traffic, and gang unit. Estimated First Year Cost Versaterm - $ 225,000 Placer units - $ 127,600 25 ft cable - $ 4,840 Antenna- $ 8,250 Bracket- $ 1,290 Installation - $ 27,500 Monitors - $ 10,000 Total - $ 404,480 Estimate approximately 9 % contingency for unknown items in implementation. Project cost estimate at $ 442,905. Assumes first year maintenance covered under warranty with future years estimate to be included in PD general fund department request for FY 08 Automatic Vehicle Locater 1 1 Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-22 2005-06 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Police New Item __J Department - Type of Initiative • Terry Fritz (Contact Number) Prepared By i _ Telephone Contact 7,1 General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0'. Internal Service Fund I ' Total $0 j $01 Enterprise Fund Total C $0 $0; Other Fund 73 Fund Fund Balance $ 350,197.00 1 0 Total $ 350 197.00 III $0 1 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's none I none Existing Number of FTE's 0 0; Total 0 01 Description Overtime Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount - r - - — I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 73-73002 2700 $ 117,117.00 73-73005 2700 $ 5.00 73-73010 2700 $ 233,000.00 73-73012 2700 $ 22.00 73-73015 2700 $ 53.00 $ 350,197.00 Additional Accounting Details: Asset Forfeiture Fund Budget available of $ 92,660.32 in CC 73-73002 for a total project cost estimate of$442,857. Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A O E a) a", c U N O N L p w 3 c w • a 3 0 ° m 0 m a) c�i `t' ° a E cc u) m ` o E ° U O a a S. o N IS! U N C W N N a- m a) N = p N r .1) V p m N a o a E N c a ° -0 n m L co v rn 3 p• n >. O N ,C CO O 'j N U C �" y O O C C 'O `C co C Qt• O N Ei• t0— CU N (p v2i O C a U d fa C C N d 7 E `p E p l0 Q N >. N m m w T N J O d .0 C TO i. N N O O N O (n 7.., .-. U a K A' m 2 > o ¢ W o N t. O O 0 O O 0 0 0 O O O f6 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O d O O O O C:) O O P. O O O a M IC) N N O M M M N r 69 EA Efl 69 U EA 69 EA N N ff? 69 V3 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 o O o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o C a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cr, 0 o C V V3 69 N Lri O O M �17 — M M CO N w `' 69 EA 69 63 E9 a- fR — 69 N W d to V! r N 6.). 6R (W/) o o � O O 0 0 i.a o V Q Q O O 69 O O O Eg y N tea` UU � N) o o 'A a.) EA c. y a a N O — 0 0 0 0 N } } N M M06 M N Q Q O •v W ill J C m Z J Q Q C C C 3 g n J a. 0) y C INLI W o a.. 'W jr m g Z V U o Q-' a 'o o o oui $ im a w W Q a O• W 0 a ▪ Z C7 z w icIE O• J NN +m > 2 -.IW y OI- L O F- m N N ID Z o C a U u. O (CSm 0 c Q. .y 'C 0 cn OJ C -`C m V-Ne C 13 N f6 N O "' v C 11. W C - - ;0 C y o d m (0 ', ci F- c CL w m o T' � w � (l) - a a- c Q C` W Cl)3 m m y > > > W Q 1- ,E . z 5 5 co < as C_ IL aCC J f6 ca a > Q 2 0 O J Q Cl) 0 Initiative Name: Additional Legal Support for Public Utilities and Mgmt Services Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-23 Initiative Type: New New Item Initiative Discussion: The Attorney's Office is asking for an additional one-quarter (1/4) FTE for additional legal work for Public Utilities and Management Services (franchises) matters. Current staffing levels are insufficient to perform this work in a timely manner. The cost of the one-quarter FTE on an annual basis would be $30,000. If approved effective March 1, 2006, the FY 2005-2006 cost would be $10,000. Administrative fees will charge two-thirds of the costs to Public Utilities and the general fund will be charged for one-third the costs. This one-quarter time would be added to the attorney that was added for the RDA three-quarter time to make one full time attorney. I I ADDITIONAL LEGAL SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND 1 MANAGEMENT SERVICES Initiative Title - BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-23 2005-06 ___i Initiative Number Attorneys Office —_i Fiscal Year New Item i Department I 1 Type of Initiative Ed Rutan/Sandra Stanger 535-7628/535-7699 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp;, ($3,300) Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Admin Fees Public Utilities $ 6,700.00 $ 20,000.00 Total $ 6,700.00 $ 20,000.00 Internal Service Fund I ----------- Total; $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0' $0; Other Fund Total 0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0.25 0.251 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 jTotal 0 0j Description ___] - — — -- -- j - 1 ---1 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 15-01400 1900 $ 6,700.00 !� Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 15-01400 2111-01 $ 10,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: - Grant funds employee positions? No Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Communication's E-911 Furniture & Workstations Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-24 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Through the collection of E911 funds to support upgrades and improvements to level of E911 service provided to the community. We are asking to use fund balance to replace the furniture in the 911 Area. The furniture in the center is used 24 hours a day, 365 days a year taking a lot of use being adjust by 47 different people. In order to provide an ergonomic work stations for the call takers. We request consoles in the dispatch area be replaced. Also due to extensive wiring under the sub floor we are required to rewire and have vendors move their specific equipment meeting the manufacturers specifications. Cost in this area are also to have someone move the old furniture out, pay for any additional wiring issues and monitoring of the 911 phone system while the installation takes place. Without interruption of service to the community. It is recommended that the City Council allow the use $ 150,000 of fund balance added to existing line item capital budget of $ 270,000 for a total project cost of $ 420,000. This will purchase new stations for the Police (16) and Fire (4) as they serve as an overflow if the PD gets busy. Communication's E-911 Furniture & Workstations Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-24 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Police New Item Department Type of Initiative Jerry Burton 799-3824 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact --- i Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 -- General Fund ■ , Total $0 $01 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $01 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $01 Other Fund 60- E-911 Fund Fund Balance $ 150,000.00 1 Total $ 150,000.00 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's none •none Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total ■ 0 0 Description ■ __ Overtime _ MEET 1 ■ , I . Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number j Object Code Number Amount I , -r- I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount _ 0-00620 2700 $ 150,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: { Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A 1-_ If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or _Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Justice Court Staffing Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-25 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The Administration proposes that $130,294 from the General Fund (fund balance) be appropriated to increase staffling levels at the Justice Court. The recent management audit of the Justice Court recognized that the court is operating at a much higher level of caseload per judge and caseload per staff member than any of the other courts surveyed. The audit also recommended a weighted caseload study to determine whether staffing levels should be increased. However, in the discussion of the Justice Court it was noted that because the caseload to staffing levels are so much higher than the the other courts surveyed (377% of the average), additional staff are needed now. The immediate staffing needs are 9 positions: an additional judge with 3 clerks, one additional clerk for each of the 4 current full-time judges, and a file clerk to scan completed cases. The Court would like to get the authorization for another full-time judge position immediately in order to begin the hiring process. The next available mandatory trainings for a new judge are in either May or in September, and a typical hiring time frame is at least three months. Because of this hiring time frame, no budget for personal services for the judge position is requested in the FY 2005-06 budget. Authorizing the judge position now would allow the Court to have a judge in place to take advantage of the September training. The part-time judge positions are expected to remain in place. These judges fill in when the full-time judges are not available, and also hold regularly scheduled calendars to relieve the workload of full time judges, although cases cannot be assigned to those judges for the purpose of case management and probation supervision. The new clerk positions will be housed on the second floor of the building. The four Attorney- Client rooms on that level will be remodeled to house a total of six clerks. Two small walls will need to be removed, office cubicle furniture will be installed, and key card access will be installed for security. Remodeling costs will also include relocating the Attorney-Client areas to new cubicles on the second floor in the public open area. The other new positions will be able to use the computers and desk areas in the courtrooms. The judge position, as noted above, will not require a computer and phone until the FY 2006-07 budget year. The clerk positions would be trained in-house to be ready for the new judge. The duties for the additional clerk for each full-time judge would be updating calendars, following up on tickler files, filing, and performing case management tasks (e.g.monitoring probation and fines). The two clerks currently assigned to each judge are not usually able to keep up with all of these tasks. In addition to the current staffing of two clerks per judge, the criminal section also has five pool clerks who issue warrants, take phone calls, work at the counter to answer questions from the public, pull calendars, coordinate juries and interpreters, and do some case management. These clerks will continue to perform these functions, and no increase is requested. The breakdown of costs is as follows: Personal Services: 7 Justice Court Clerks for 3 months - $72,300 1 File Clerk for 3 months - $9,500 Equipment (object codes 2340 and 2506): High Speed Scanner (one time expense) - $10,000 1 Printer/ copier/fax machine (one time expense) - $4,000 6 Computers (leased for $46 / month for 3 months - $828 6 Telephone lines ($37 / month for 3 months) - $666 Software licensing for JEMS (object code 2225 05): 8 New users at $2500 per license (one time expense) - $20,000 Remodeling (object codes 2760 50 and 2299): Furniture, cubicles - $10,000 Key card access for offices - $3000 The Justice Court agrees that a weighted caseload analysis would be helpful, and Court staff intends to do an in-house analysis using local weighted caseload data. The Court would also welcome an independent study with the help of the National Center for State Courts in the next budget year. If either weighted caseload study should show staffing levels too high in any of the areas in which staff are added, adjustments will be made to decrease the staffing levels as needed. Additional staff now will also alleviate some of the workload so the staff will have the time to participate in a weighted caseload analysis. Revenue from the criminal caseload will be increased by adding a full-time judge, but it takes quite some time before that revenue is realized. Bringing more cases to a disposition will eventually increase revenue, but the cases will take at least three to six months to be completed. The increase in revenue from criminal cases is expected no sooner than mid-year in FY 2006-07. An increase of $130,000 (20% for half of the year), is estimated. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this increase in staffing. Justice Court Staffing Initiative Name I - BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-25 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Management Services New Item Department Initiative Type Mary Johnston 535-7173 Prepared By Phone Contact General Fund (Fund Balance) Impact (130,294) Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Justice Court Criminal Fines 0 $ 130,000.00 Total $01 $ 130,000.00 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0, Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total $0 $01 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 9.00 9.00 Existing Number of FTE's 48.10 48.101 Total 57.10 57.101 _Description New Positions _ Criminal Court Judge 006 1.00 1.00',_ Justice Court Clerk 218 7.00 7.001 ---- File Clerk 216 1.00 1.00' _ Existing Positions (comparable to new positions) Criminal Court Judge 006 4.00' 4.004 Justice Court Judge PT 1.50 1.501 Justice Court Clerk 218 13.00 _ 13.00 File Clerk PT 0.50 0.50T______ Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number i ! Object Code Number I Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 01-00028 - - Personal Services $ 81,799.50 01-00028 2506 701-00028 - , 2340 • $ 14,828.00 I' 01-00028 2760 5010,000.00 $ I 2225 05 01-00028 � -- � - ---- -- --- -- — $ 20,000 00 L01-00028 $ 130,293.50 Additional Accounting Details: 1 Grant Information: !Grant funds employee positions? N/A -1 'Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A - - • Initiative Name: CIP Cemetery Historical Survey Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #A-26 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: The Public Services Parks Division received a $2,500 grant from the Utah Humanities Council for a historical survey of the Salt Lake City Cemetery. The grant requires a match of$11,635, which will be met with $5,045 of in-kind services of personnel time, supplies, printing, etc., within the Public Services Park Division, a cash match of $5,000 which is being proposed to be funded with CIP general fund cost over-run monies and the consultant, who will perform the study is requesting private donor's provide an additional $2,500 to match the grant. This request is to appropriate $5,000 of CIP general fund cost over-run funds to be used as match for the Utah Humanities grant. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. j CIP - Cemetery Historical Study Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-26 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development New Item Department j Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By - — i Telephone Contact (General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0-1 $OII Internal Service Fund -- Total, $0 Enterprise Fund $0 -L- t Total $01 ` $0 Other Fund i 11 Total $0 $0 1 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's Total 0.00 0.00 0; p Descri tion Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number j Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-04099 2700 $ _ (5,000.00) 83 New Cost Center 2700 $ 5,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ---- eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Street Lighting Funding Analysis Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-27 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: It is proposed that $75,000 be appropriated from fund balance to facilitate the hiring of a specialized consultant to analyze options for funding a city-wide street lighting program. The current lighting program is funded from several sources, none of which is guaranteed. The existing lighting infrastructure is not currently being funded sufficiently to adequately maintain and replace lighting. Citizens are also interested in converting to decorative lighting. Funding methods and sources, with associated pros and cons, to fund the capital, operating and maintenance costs need to be identified and evaluated to provide the information needed to determine the type of lighting program(s) to be offered and the associated funding level and source. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this project. Street Lighting Funding Analysis Initiative Name ! j BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-27 2005-06 Initiative Number j Fiscal Year Community Development/Transportation New Item Department j Initiative Type Tim Harpst 535-6630 - -- Prepared By Phone Contact — General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp{ ($75,000) Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund — Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $01 $01 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total 0 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 01 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0 Oj Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number j Amount 83-new cost center 1974-01 $ 75,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-new cost center 2590 75,000.00 09-00700 -- - - ----- - 2910-01 $ 75,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: - - - - Grant Information: LGrant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will -_- be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A 7 Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Ground Transportation Administrator Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #A-28 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: It is proposed that $23,025 be appropriated from the General Fund fund balance to facilitate the hiring of an full time position to provide oversight of the transportation Industry Ordinances, which will include the new contract form of regulation. The position will report directly to the Director of Building Services and Business Licensing. The position would be a 606 level employee, the range of pay for this pay class, is $42,390 (entry) to $52,998 (midpoint). Salary and benefits for the full year at the mid point would be $68,558. An additional $5,885 is needed for Vehicle expenses, computer lease, cubicle installation. The total cost for a full fiscal year would be $74,443. The cost for fiscal year 2005-06 is $23,025. Salary and benefits for one quarterly of the year is $17,140 and the $5,885 for vehicle, computer and cubicle installation. Currently the ground transportation industry is regulated through the Business License Office using Certificates of Convenience and Necessity. Recently Council adopted a resolution to change to a contract form of regulation. That change will require an RFP and bids from several potential providers. This new position is vital to oversee the development of the RFP and begin to fashion a program for enforcement under the new contract. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this project. Ground Transportation Administrator Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#A-28 -- 2005-06 Initiative Number 1 ! Fiscal Year Community Development/Business Licensing New Item Department 1 - Initiative Type Orion Goff 535-6681 Prepared By Phone Contact I General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imps ($23,025) Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 'General Fund — Total I $0 $0 Tlnternal Service Fund Total j $0 $0 (Enter rise Fund — — Total $0 $01 IOther Fund 1 Total 0 Staffing Impact: _New Number of FTE's 0 0 !Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 01 0' ,Description I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 06- New Cost Center 2100 $ 17,140.00 06- New Cost Center 2300 $ 5,885.00 $ 23,025.00 Additional Accounting Details: _- 1 1 Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: State of Utah VAWA Grant - Police Dept Victim Advocate Position Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #B-1 Initiative Type: Grants For Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Police Department applied for and received, $18,161.21 of grant funding from the State of Utah, Office of Crime Victim Reparations under the Violence Against Women Grant Program. The PD receives this grant annually and funds will continue to be used to pay the salary and benefits of 1 existing PTE Victim Advocate Position. This Program currently has 3 FTE's and 1 PTE that are budgeted within the PD's general fund budget and 4 PTE's who are grant funded. The grant requires a $6,651. in-kind match which will be met with the Program Coordinators salary and budgeted for within the PD's general fund budget. This program provides services that include resources, referrals, information support, community education, court advocacy and crisis intervention to victims of domestic violence. Of the 4,792 temporary protective orders and the 2,263 permanent protective orders issued in 2004 on behalf of victims of domestic violence, 40% of each category were issued from the 3rd District Court which serves residents of Salt Lake City. From Jan 1 to October 15, 2005 the SLC PD responded to 2,805 domestic violence incidents. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the appropriate budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and to accept and sign any additional related grants. State of Utah VAWA Grant-Police Dept Victim Advocate Position Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#B-1 2005-06 Initiative Number j Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Police Staff Resources Department -_1 Type of Initiative Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins 799-3729/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0; Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 72 Fund Grants $ 18,161.21 Total $ 18,161.21 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0.50 0 Total 0.50 0' _Description 1040 hours at$16.76 per hr. Plus benefits Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 05-VAWA-24 16.588 Revenue: Cost Center Number j Object Code Number ! Amount 72- New Cost Center 1370 — j $ 18,161.21 _ - T-- Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2111-01 $ 18,161.21 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? Yes .Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes -- i If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes --L I (Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or 'Non-profit sector? No —-- -- Initiative Name: Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) - State of Utah - Grant Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #B-2 Initiative Type: Grant for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Police Department applied for and received this $50,000 grant from the State of Utah, Department of Health for their Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Program to administer, coordinate, and promote CIT training efforts throughout the State. This program was initiated to assist Law Enforcement Officers in effectively dealing with a person experiencing a mental health crisis, as well as every day interaction with mental health consumers. These funds will be used as follows: $25,165 for partial salaries and benefits of the SLCPD Program Director and Coordinator who administer the Statewide CIT Program; $10,320 for travel, training, workshop and conference expenses which include remote CIT presentations, trainings for the Director and Coordinator and workshops and conferences; and $14,515 for supplies to include manuals, certification pins, lanyards, and food provided during the trainings and equipment necessary for conducting CIT trainings. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the grant agreement and to appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) -State ----- — _—_-_ of Utah - Grant Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #B-2 2005-06 I Initiative Number 1 j -- _ Fiscal Year i Grant for Existing Staff Police Resources Department Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins Type Initiative 799-3729/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund I i Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund $01 Total' $0, Enterprise Fund Total Other Fund I 72 Fund Grant E $ 50,000.00 Total $ 50,000.00 $0 Staffing Impact: j New Number of FTE's 01111 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0r ,Total 0 0 ,Description L r I— I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 172- New Cost Center j 1370 $ 50,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2590 $ 50,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? Yes Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No I - Does grant duplicate services provided by private or —r Non-profit sector? No Initiative Name: State of Utah VAWA Grant -Justice Court Clerk Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #B-3 Initiative Type: Grants For Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Management Services City Courts Division applied for and received, $39,927.84 of grant funding from the State of Utah, Office of Crime Victim Reparations under the Violence Against Women Grant Program. The Justice Court receives this grant annually and funds will be used to continue to fund the full-time court clerk position to process domestic violence cases filed with the with Salt Lake City Justice Court/ This position tracks, manages and provides follow-up on each domestic violence case to monitor offender compliance with court ordered probation, community service, counseling, drug treatment, etc. A 25% city match or $20,578.65 is required and will be met within the personnel services of the Justice Court Director, the Criminal Section Manger, the Domestic Violence Court Judge, and is currently budgeted for within the courts general fund budget. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the appropriate budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and to accept and sign any additional related grants. State of Utah VAWA Grant-Justice Court Clerk Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#B-3 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Management Services Staff Resources _ Department Type of Initiative Mary Johnston/Sherrie Collins _ 535-7173/535-6150 — Prepared By Telephone Contact _ j General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 72 Fund Grant $ 39,927.84 Total $ 39,927.84 $0 IStaffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 1.00 0 Total 1.001 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 05-VAWA-23 16.588 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 1370 I I $ 39,927.84 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2111-01 $ 39,927.84 - Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: r Grant funds employee positions? - - Yes 4 [Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes l if grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are j eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative Name: Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Grant Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #B-4 Initiative Type: Grant For Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: Management Services Emergency Preparedness Office applied for and received this $2,500. Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) grant from the State Department of Public Safety. This grant is received on an annual basis and is used to offset some of the personnel expenses of the Emergency Manager salary for activities with the LEPC and web-site expenses. The $2,500 grant requires a 20% or$625.00 match which will be met within Management Services general fund budget in the personnel expense. These It is recommended that the City Council adopt the appropriate budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and to accept and sign any additional related grants. Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Grant 1 Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#B-4 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Management Services _ _ Staff Resources Department Type of Initiative - Michael Stever/Sherrie Collins _ 535-6030/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total, $0 1 $0 Internal Service Fund Total Enterprise Fund Total ' - Other Fund 72 Fund Grants $ 2,500.00 . Total $ 2,500.00 $0: Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 & Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0.00 0 1 Descri tion ii Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: 20.703 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount _ 1172- New Cost Center 1370 $ 2,500.00 -( t- Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2590 $ 2,500.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? No Is there a potential for grant to continue? No If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative Name: Leonardo Dept of Education Pass through to Global Artways Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #B-5 Initiative Type: Grant For Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Leonardo received a US Department of Education Grant and is contracting with the City's Global Artways program for collaboration of arts education and programming at the Leonardo. The Leonardo awarded Global Artways $99,200 for arts programming. Global will use $22,500 for seasonal teachers for the Summer Arts Aprentice Program and Shapkepeare in the Park productions, $38,700 for equipment which includes a sound studio and production materials needed, and $38,000 for contractual components which include a Performance Art Piece with SLC Bicycle Coalition, 21st Century Play Festival and the workshop for Children's Opera. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the appropriate budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and to accept and sign any additional related grants. Leonardo Dept of Ed Pass through to Global Artways Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#B-5 2005-06 Initiative Number j Fiscal Year L Grant For Existing Staff Public Services YouthCity 1 Resources Department L Type of Initiative Janet Wolf/Sherrie Collins 535-7712/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund = Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund I Total $0 $0• '1 IEnterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund - 72 Fund Grants $ 99,200.00 I Total $ 99,200.00 $0I II Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's OR 0; Existing Number of FTE'sI 0 Total 0.00 0' Description Seasonal employees/teachers for specific programs II 7 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount - 72- New Cost Center 1360 $ 99,200.00 - a - Expenditure: -- Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72_ New Cost Center 2590 $ 99,200.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? No j Is there a potential for grant to continue? No If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will jbe eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No F Initiative Name: Leonardo Dept of Education Pass through to Housing and Neighborhood Development for Grant Consultation Initiative Number: BA#4 FY 2006 Initiative #B-6 Initiative Type: Grant For Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Leonardo received a US Department of Education Grant and is contracting with the City's Housing and Neighborhood Development for grant consultation. The Leonardo will pay Housing and Neighborhood Development over a period of 5 years, funds totaling $8,710. for grant consultation pertaining to the Leonardo's Department of Education Grant. More specific, HAND will monitor project fund disbursements and required Federal reporting by Leonardo. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the appropriate budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and to accept and sign any additional related grants. Leonardo Dept of Ed Pass through to Housing and Neighborhood Development Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative# 2005-06 _ Initiative Number i Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Community Development Staff Resources Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 {General Fund Total $0 i ----- -- $0 Internal Service Fund j 1 Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0j Other Fund .72 Fund Grants $ 8,710.00 Total $ 8,710.00 $01 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0i Total 0.00 0 Description -1 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number I Amount 72- New Cost Center 1360 $ 8,710.00 I ' Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2590 $ 8,710.00 l — —a Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? Yes Is there a potential for grant to continue? No If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative Name: US Department of Education -YouthCity Program Income Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #D-1 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: YouthCity Programs generate program income from fees collected for programming services provided to youth at Ottinger, Liberty, Fairmont and Central City YouthCity sites. This request is to create budget to facilitate the expenditure of the program income. Program Income is re- allocated back into the programs where it was received. It is recommended that the Council appropriate the necessary budgets to continue facilitation of these programs. US Department of Education Program Income -YouthCity Program _ Income Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#D-1 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total 0 $0'1 Internal Service Fund Total 0 $0J Enterprise Fund Total 0 $01 Other Fund 72 Fund - Program Fees $ 36,430.20 Total $ 36,430.20 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0j Total 0 0 _- Description , Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount , I72-66003 1305 $ 7,364.50 72-66004 1305 $ 11,058.00 _ j 72-66005 1 1305 - $ 170.00 72-66006 1305 -- �- 12,216.00 72-66005 # 30.00 1305 $ 172-66005 1305 72-66002 1305 $ 156.50 $ 783.50 i 72-66004 1305 $ 1,767.25 !_ 72-66006 1305 $ 2,884.45 $ 36,430.20 Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount —172-66003 2590 $ 7,364.50 72-66004 2590 MI $ 12,825.25 7 72-66005 2590 $ 356.50 172-66006 2590 $ 15,100.45 72-66002 2590 $ 783.50 111 $ 36 430.20 i Additional Description: IIII Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A II 1 Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will _ be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A i Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? J N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A 1 Initiative Name: Economic Development Loan Program Income Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #D-2 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: The City Center Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) loan has generated program income from payments received from the borrower. The reallocation of these funds is directed by Resolution Number 93 of 1991 which states repayments of the City Center UDAG be used as a source of funding to support the Neighborhood Revitalization Element of the Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund. In addition, the UDAG Revolving Loan Fund has generated program income from the repayments of principal and interest made to the City from borrowers. The Council has traditionally re-appropriated this program income back to the UDAG Revolving Loan Fund program to fund additional loans for economic development. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the necessary adjustments to the budgets to continue facilitation of these programs. i Economic Development Loan Program Income 1 Initiative Name j BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#D-2 2005-06 _ 1 Initiative Number _ j Fiscal Year j Community Development - Housekeeping Department [_ Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared P By Telephone Contact !General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total) 0 $0 Internal Service Fund ---- --- _ Total 01 $0'i __-- Enterprise Fund _- Total 0 $0! Other Fund 72 Fund UDAG Revolving $ 1,061,340.00 Payback (7215607) 72 FundCity Center Loan Fund $ 217,748.00 (7200720) Total $ 1,279,088.00 $01 Staffing Impact: — !New Number of FTE's 0 0' Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0 01 Description T I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-15607 1305 ! $ 1,061,340.001 72-15607 1305 $ 217,748.00 $ 1,279,088.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-15607 2950 $ 1,061,340.00 72-15607 2950 $ 217,748.00 $ 1,279,088.00 Additional Description: — I Grant Information:Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Move CDBG CIP from 71 to 83 Fund Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #D-3 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: These projects are CDBG Public Building Improvement projects. This action will move budgets and cash of these capital improvement projects from the 71 fund to the 83 fund which includes all capital improvement projects. This will allow Housing and Neighborhood Development to easier track and monitor all CIP Projects. It is recommended that the Council appropriate the necessary adjustments to the budgets to continue facilitation of these projects. I Move CDBG CIP From 71 to 83 Fund 1 Initiative Name BA#4 FY2006 Initiative#D-3 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535/6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total 0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total 0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total 0 $0 Other Fund Total 0 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount 71-31013 - -_ -- 1310 _ (107,400.00) 71-31018 r 1310 _ (15 000.00) 71 31052 j 1310 - 71-31053 1310 (19,600.00) 71-31030 1310 (41,564.00)j -_ 71-31058 _ _ 1310 (62,982.00) ;71-31057 1310 (10,000.00) 1310 71 31043 _- _ i 71-31059 1310 (17,300.00) (59,400.00)j 71-31060 1310 (60,000.00) 71-31044 1310 _ _ (8,000.00) 71-31055 1310 5 500.00 71-31045 - (27,723.00)± ( ' 71-31054 1310 [71-31056 1310 171-31036 1310 (118,000.00) 171 30054 1310 (15,000.00) 71 30055 1310 (7,500.00) 71-30057 1310 (10,000.00) 71-30059 1310 (7,975.41);_ 71-30060 1310 (120,000.00) 71-30063 1310 (18,000.00) (761,219.41)� 83-New Cost Center 1310 107,400.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 15,000.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 9,900.00 -- ----------------- 3-New Cost Center 1310 _ 19,600.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 41,564.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 62,982.00 '83-New Cost Center - 1310 10,000.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 17,300.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 59,400.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 60,000.00 183-New Cost Center 1310 8,000.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 5,500.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 27,723.00 _83-New Cost Center 1310 3,400.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 16,975.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 118,000.00 _ __ 83-New Cost Center 1310 15,000.00 r 83-New Cost Center 1310 7,500.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 10,000.00 j 83-New Cost Center 1310 7,975.41 '83-New Cost Center 1310 120,000.00 83-New Cost Center 1310 18,000.00 761,219.41 _ Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 71-31013 2590 (107,400.00) j4 71-31018 2590 (15,000.00) 71-31052 2590 (9,900.00)L 71-31053 2590 (19,600.00)1 1 71-31030 2590 (41,564.00) 71-31058 2590 (62,982.00) _ 71-31057 2590 (10,000.00)+ 71-31043 2590 (17,300.00) 71-31059 2590 (59,400.00) 71-31060 2590 (60,000.00)t 71-31044 2590 (8,000.00) 71-31055 2590 (5,500.00)i 71-31045 2590 (27,723.00)j 71-31054 2590 (3,400.00) 71-31056 2590 (16,975.00)+ 71-31036 2590 (118,000.00) 71-30054 2590 (15,000.00) 71-30055 2590 (7,500.00)1- 71-30057 2590 (10,000.00) 71-30059 2590 (7,975.41) 71-30060 2590 (120,000.00) _ 71-30063 2590 (18,000.00) T (761,219.41) i 83-New Cost Center 2590 107,400.00 I 83-New Cost Center 2590 15,000.00 83-New Cost Center 2590 9,900.00 44 _ 83-New Cost Center 2590 19,600.00 83-New Cost Center 2590 41,564.00 83-New Cost Center 2590 62,982.00 j _ 83-New Cost Center 2590 10,000.00 83-New Cost Center 2590 17,300.00 83-New Cost Center 2590 59,400.00 83-New Cost Center 2590 60,000.00 83-New Cost Center 2590 8,000.00 83-New Cost Center 2590 5,500.00 I 83-New Cost Center 2590 27,723.00 83-New Cost Center 2590 3,400.00 f 83-New Cost Center 2590 16,975.00 I 83-New Cost Center 2590 118,000.00 � 83-New Cost Center 2590 15,000.00 83-New Cost Center 2590 I 7,500.00 83-New Cost Center 1 2590 ! i 10,000.00 183-New Cost Center 2590 7,975.41 83-New Cost Center 2590 1 _ 120,000.00 83-New Cost Center 2590 18,000.00 761,219.41 i__--- Additional Description: -I- - Grant Information: — — Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will if be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A 4 Does grant duplicate services provided by private or L Non-profit sector? N/A I Initiative Name: Housing Loans Program Income Initiative Number: BA#4 FY2006 Initiative #D-4 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: The Housing Section of Housing and Neighborhood Development has generated program income from principal and interest payments received from borrowers. The Council has traditionally re-appropriated this program income back to the Housing section to fund additional loan